The funny thing is the issue of more fileds is a much bigger problem in the burbs that it is the cities. I know for a fact that there are tons of baseball fields here in the bronx that are positively deserted all year round. Thats a good point though.
Heck, even when we find them, we end up losing them again. Does anybody know what happened to Carlos Morales, who was on the U-18 national team with Buddle and Martino? Last I heard (years ago now), he was attending community college. Raúl Rivera, who played U-17 with Donovan and Beasley, fell off the radar for a long time before recently re-surfacing in the PDL. One-time phenom Raúl Palomares has now gone to Guadalajara in hopes of joining Chivas-USA ... who knows, maybe Miguel Saavedra is down there, too. When you drop down from the national to the regional teams, there are dozens of hispanic kids who show up on the radar then disappear. For whatever reason, most of them don't end up in the college pipeline.
I don't understand this whole fixation with race. A good player is a good player, no matter where he is from. Herzog is the perfect example. Look at that left foot, as good as Etch's in my opinion, yet because he is European, immediately he is stigmatized that he is here to just earn money (can you morons please point me to a European who has failed miserably and was a big money signing? Lothar you say? the metros made their money back in selling tv rights to germany, and he played well in the playoffs, he's a wash, except for him there is nobody else....). Again, it depends on the player you get. If they are good, they are going to play well. What I want to see is a mix of latin and european traits. That would be ideal in my opinion, instead of this BS, lets look to the South.
As Rommul points out, kids playing amongst themselves is essential toward developing ball skills. Donovan had a great quote one time saying how the best learning he did at Brandenton was when they would hang out and play just the players. Learning moves from each other, all top-level players. (Pretty cool image, he and Bease doing this at age 15 or whatever and then a couple years later they start a WC game together. Pretty clear why they play together so well.) In ELA, where I live, kids do this in the park every single day (gless and 1st st for ex.). Talking trash to each other, playing 3v3 (fubolito). It's great. There was a cool article in the paper about how they wanted to keep people off the fields so the grass could revive from so much use but they couldn't stop anyone. Someone mentioned basketball, there probably a good analogy there with the one-on-one play US style with emphasis on dunking and trash talking vs the Euro team game and emphasis on shooting. To be simplistic, the cool-factor in the Latin game is juking and keep-away passing (ole!); thats the in-your-face stuff. The one-on-one skills stuff is huge and usually learned early. Adu said he got these skills from the older guys who would teach him these moves. I don't think its an accident that two of the best US Nats in terms of pure ball skills are Reyna and Mastroeni, two Latinos who were taught the emphasis of this stuff at an early age (Reyna says that in More Than Goals. I speculate with Mastro.) As we all agree, Gardner's statement that 75% of the talent is in the Latino game is ludicrous, but his point about the dearth of Latinos in the coaching ranks and the lack of emphasis on a more Latin style is true and a huge oversight.
I don't have a fixation with race. I've just noticed that there is a group of players who are underrepresented in the player pool and that by better integrating that group we (MLS, USA nats, etc) should all benefit. In this case, that group happens to be recognizable by their race. And Chivas USA seems to be a possible avenue to integrating that group in the USSF Family. And there is an owner with deep pockets willing to help tap this market, albeit for his own reasons. Seems like a no-brainer. I would also say that poor urban youths (often black, but not always) are another underrepresented group. A harder group to get at, but inner-city soccer (I used to be an inner-city high school assistant coach) doesn't have the money or community respect as it does in affluent suburbs. A disproportionate number of players at the higher levels come from relatively affluent backgrounds. This is a much tougher nut to crack, IMO.
Arisules, This is true, but the styles are different. Brazilian style is more mano a mano with one on one dribbling and the European style is more of passing to the open man and strong defense with counter attack style. A good player is a good player but a good player from one country may have a style more successful against other good players from other countries. Its like a good cars from two different countries and name plates. You can have a Corvette and a Acura NSX. Two very good fast cars, but because of the vets upbringing in a country that specializes in fast muscles cars the Corvette will probably outdo it in most drag races but the Acura may be better in curvey roads, but in the end its what wins in all the different factors combined. Thats what Brazil has been able to do. You can have good players from different countries but it is no accident that Brazil has been cositently on or near the top. because the qualities of the Brazilian player overall has proven to be the best. If a good player is a good player then there world be no need for tournaments such as the World Cups. The worlds player development is not run by a single entity structure that enforces parity. One style will always be better than another until it is proven to me otherwise. Ciao Steve
Fair enough...but I don't think Gardner is saying that the problem is that talented Latino 8 year olds aren't playing select. I think he's saying talented 14 year olds aren't getting the proper training...or even 16 year olds. Remember, his whole belief system is that our coaching destroys players, so Gardner wouldn't want lil' 8 year old Jose playing in a whitebread league.
You're confusing two different things. By the time kids get to Bradenton, yeah, they need tons of practice. This topic has come up many times, and every time, people who know something about Brazil always say that at age 15 and 16, the best Brazilian players are in the club system, not playing in the street.
I am not saying kids 15 and 16 should be playing in the street or that they are doing that in brazil.I am saying Bradenton is a microcosm of the way player development is pursued at all levels in this country. Too much regimantation.
This might be a weird question, but who is underepresented? Not that i care even if they were, but i just dont see it. Seems harsh to some I guess, but in soccer I can really careless about race and try to reach out to certain groups.
I must have missed something in that article. Yes, Gardner used the word "prejudice". However, he then clarified that he WASN'T talking about racial prejudice. He said that there was a prejudice against a certain style of playing soccer, and that style was a style that was more aesthetically pleasing to Latinos and the style that they played more so than the style that MLS seems to be playing. He went on to blame this on the fact that the coaching in this country is skewed towards the European style because most of the coaches are more familiar with that style. So I'm not sure why people are all over this idea of racism. That's clearly not what he said. Matter of fact, he went out of his way to state that's not what he meant. He has a good point though. MLS seems to play a lot more of the European style, and in a league that is still fighting for survival, I think that there is little doubt that a game played with a bit more flair, offense and creativity would appeal to a broader cross-section of people in this country. I don't think that Gardner meant much more than that.
1. Is MLS still really fighting for survival? 2. Coaches are going to do what they think gives them the best chance to win/get a result. That's the immutable law of sports. If you want more flair, etc., that's the obstacle you'll have to overcome.
1) yes, MLS is in better shape than it was a couple of years ago, but clearly is still losing money. 2) I understand that point, but don't you think that part of your feeling as to what gives you "the best chance to win" is dictated by what you are used to seeing and doing? latin americans coaches, if polled, would probably say that their style is also more conducive to winning. Brazil, who plays with the most flair, has also won the most. I am not so naive to think it's as simple as that, but nor should you be from the other side. Coaches play what they are used to playing. Since most of the coaches here are used to a european style, they are not comfortable and most likely are not good at coaching a more latin style ball. Therefore, they wouldn't be able to win with it .......... so they fall back on what they know. do they not win with an offensive style because it's inferior? or do they just not know how to coach the style, and therefore can't win with it? chicken or the egg argument for the most part. that's why I will be happy when Chivas gets this thing up and running in the next couple of years, because they are going to force teams to do a little something different, and bring them out of their comfort zone. And I for one will be happy about that.
Well said. And then when AmericaUSA (...and PumasUSA) join we'll have a very interesting and unique league with multiple teams playing contrasting styles.
Currently in Texas the clubs play spring and fall. High schools play in winter. Rarely do athletes have to choose one or the other. They are playing both now if they want to.
I'm very naïve when it comes to youth soccer but why does it cost so much? I can see it costing the $95 a season but the $325?
League Fees Field fees Coaches Fees Insurance Ref costs Uniforms Equipment fees (go price out a standard size goal)
Trainer fees Tournament fees (depending on where you live) indoor practice facility rental w/in equipment costs: game balls, practice balls (three different sizes), corner flags, paint for striping (go price THAT out), small goals
ding ding ding. heck, that may be the problem why some kids dont develop. most of the guys at the top are more concerned about winning than they are about preparing these kids for the "next level."
I have no first hand experience with what constitutes youth soccer in this country since all my playing was done within the confines of NYC but I am starting to get this impression the more I read the posts of people who are deeply involved ***Run-on sentence overload!!***
I pulled that right off their website and my checkbook. "Select" is two practices a week, one game a week with a real coach. Meaning not me. The coach may or may not get paid - but he is licensed. And that starts at U-8. You can still go the "rec" route but if your kid wants to and you want them to excel and play a higher level, Select is your only option. Right now, our Adidas uniforms cost about $16 - at least according to Eurosport and I am sure they ordered more than 150 and got an even better deal. I wonder where the money goes too - they have a lot of volunteer coachs but they also have about 20 select coaches who I know get paid. I have read that some select youth coaches get paid $75 - $100 K per year. Field use - although we play at a county park which I guess we rent somehow. Plus they do fund raisers - like selling cookie dough. Youth soccer is big business. HUGE.
The biggest part of the fee is insurance in our league. Then, if the league has to get a permit for the field, that is another chunk, if the field is lighted, the costs go even higher. Coaches paid? More like we pay to coach. Having said that, I can't wait for Saturday. Edit: I thought the only coaches who got paid were affiliated with clubs? Even then, unless you bring a name, the wage isn't great and the benefits aren't good, so I've been told by the paid coaches who run the clinics for the league I'm in. There is the ongoing rumor around here that John Doyle got $125K for coaching a girls club, but I haven't seen that confirmed. Tony