Post-match: Trinidad & Tobago vs. USA - November 20, 2023

BUT WHY AREN'T WE BETTER THAN PANAMA!! (never mind that Panama was better than Mexico, Canada, Costa Rica and Jamaica)

 

I think its fair to challenge several things in my logic.

1. How similar/different are the sampling pools? Definitely interested in thinking through and validating or poking at that.
2. What is the right standard deviation within a sampling pool to find 23 top 10 athletes across 4 leagues. I haven't really done that math tightly. Where does Vincent Jr, De Bruyne, De Jong and/or Sterling fall on a distribution model of overall pro soccer athletes? Vs where does an average MLS player or average US player fall on that distrubution?
3. How many (how large) mathematically does our pool need to be? Its definitely fair to challenge size. I think 4 million youth players is enough bc I'm comparing it to other countries, but is it? If not, how many? Do we need X amount more to counter a difference in sampling pool? Possibly.
4. Ages- I think saying we need to look 12 years into our future today is too much. We didnt' start from scratch today and we have millions who started earlier. So I don't think we 're looking at a decade wait. Kids also start popping through at age 17/18. So 12 years is too far out for me. But I think its fair to say that its a little further out. I would be very interested in a more data driven discussion about how far out to start to see more?
5. I think the problem I have with this is that the impact of improved infrastructure could be seen earlier. Bc its pumping a well that already exists. I just don't really know how much earler.

 

This is literally the entire counter argument. Simply saying 4 million youth players in comparison to a sample set in another country is making an incorrect assumption that the distribution of elite talent is going to be the same.

It isn't. And why do we know that? Because it hasn't been -- forget the US; look at massive disparities in other countries and success.

To narrow it down to that, you've got to get an incredibly small cream of the crop. You've been comparing soccer to sports where the pool of total players is relatively small. There's no other sport in the world with this many professionals, or even really close. Where people keep trying to improve and work on it past youth ages.

The US' talent is in that Top 15-25ish range, but to be the real contender we are all talking about, Top 8 is minimum in terms of total team talent.

You've basically run a circle where you claim only population matters, but you seem to be ignoring the massive disparities in the correlation between population and performance outside the US. And it can't all be explained by infrastructure. But since nothing else can matter, it must be enough. Right, right?

Except you've made no argument that it is enough.

You are making the argument that we can't compete without improving our youth infrastructure, but you don't think we need to give players time to be found and go through that infrastructure?

[quote I think the problem I have with this is that the impact of improved infrastructure could be seen earlier. Bc its pumping a well that already exists. I just don't really know how much earler.[/quote]

I think we are currently seeing some of that benefit -- do people not think much of our overall talent and depth increase in unrelated to things like the DA and professional academies?

But while that has already improved, it's improved for mostly ages 12+, and often a little older than that.

 

100% agree on GB's roster selections. The irony of your statement on his offensive designs is that offense was supposed to be Berhalter's calling card. The first 2 years in the Coaching Philosophy thread, in retrospect, is almost comical.

 

The only thing I really question in your post is the use of the word "almost." If Gregg's "system" was/is not funny then it is tragic and I am not really ready to embrace tragedy at this point in my life.

 

I think we are currently seeing some of that benefit -- do people not think much of our overall talent and depth increase in unrelated to things like the DA and professional academies? 100% Thats where a lot of my logic is coming from. And our acadmies and new infrastructure are new a very immature. That's one reason I am saying increased investment would get immediate results.

But while that has already improved, it's improved for mostly ages 12+, and often a little older than that.[/QUOTE]

 

What kind of immediate results are you thinking we could get with increased investment?

 

Well it would make someone a bit richer and someone else a bit poorer.

 

"Immediate" and "investments" both being a relative terms its hard to say. But let's say there are 4 million kids playing soccer right now. I haven't looked at the age break outs. Let's say its 1 million for littles, 1 mil for young teens and 1 mil for later teens. Every year kids go from one age group into another age group. Bayern, s active in 27 US states & Canada with more than 95.000 children and about 6.000 coaches. The academy has maybe 200 kids in their competitive academy. Nashville SC has age brackets for U13 through U17.

4 milllion --> 95,000 --> 200--> Pro minutes

The 95,000 and 6000 coaches are your "harvesting" mechanism. So immediately you'd get two things. 1) You'd get a better retention of talent at younger ages but you'd 2) also get a deeper dive into the U17 ages. Deeper dive should produce more and better talent in that first year of the current available U17's.

So that the pool of 200 is better. Think of sampling pools. I can agree ours is "diluted" bc of losing talented players. However, just from a probability standpoint, that just means instead of trying to find 5% of talent of 1million. You're trying to find 1% (or less). The more investment, the more likely you can find that 1%.

It's all mining for gold or fishing in a pond. We can argue whether our talent pool is 4 million, 1 million or 500,000 of truly elite athletes. We can argue the different density of elite athletes that may exist in the Netherlands sample vs the US. But ultimately, it just comes down to probability and percentages. Are we looking for 5% of that population, 1% or less than 1%. The lower the percentage, then the more you need to spend on infrastructure to find that talent.

The more resources, the more the system can sift through the higher volume immediately. That's an immediate effect of more higher level youth prospects getting promoted. (Unless you think our current system of academies already finds and identifies all of those as is).

Then the later years investment-are about enriching the pool so more elite athletes stay with the sport. We'd see that improve over time as well.

 

Every time Keller had to play the ball after that one, Andres Cantor would say "Careful, he's bad with his legs!" Lol

 

Yes, I'm thinking pure volume, measured in persons times the time and money they are willing to spend on soccer. This variable can be a proxy for "cultural intensity", if we want.

We'll come back to it later, but even if the aggregate # of individuals is the same, is their level of interest (intensity) the same (eg. how much time they spend engaging with soccer)

OK, I see what you're saying a bit more now. In this sense, I agree with you: the US with a relatively small % of it's population could match the volume of participants of other competitive nations. Yes, that is true. In fact, I think you are seeing that now. We are neck-and-neck with teams that have much more mature and passionate football populations (like Mexico). We're leaning on dual nats a bit, but for the most part our population is a huge benefit in that sense.

But intensity still matters. Even if the US has more total participants than, say, Holland -- it doesn't mean they are as motivated or as equipped to gain the necessary skills as their Dutch counterparts, which is a really important detail.

I don't think "culture" is the ephemeral concept you're making it out to be (the book OFFSIDE does a good job of defining and measuring it, which is a routine sociological exercise). In more "business-y" terms, we can just look at soccer culture like any other type of system that produces some output and measure it's components:

-Institutions: governing bodies, leagues, clubs, academies, gyms, informal play (pick-up), supporters groups, soccer media, soccer journalism, analytics, sports medicine etc.

-Capital / Technologies: stadia, training facilities, medical facilities, fields, equipment, TV / internet / radio, etc.

-Processes / Procedures: matches, youth development, coaching development, physical development, technical development, broadcasting matches, documenting matches, analyzing matches, medical treatment etc.

-People: players, coaches, GMs, technical directors, administrators, youth coaches, physios, referees, groundskeepers, journalists, commentators, fans, etc.

Those are components of the "American Soccer System" (TM). The output (or product) of the system is soccer, at club or international level. The quality of the output (soccer) depends on the health of those various system components, which can absolutely be evaluated and measured. The area we are most likely to already be world class is capital / tech, as we have both the ability to invest and historical expertise / infrastructure because of a long sports history. The quality of the others is limited by expertise and experience we just don't have yet and probably doesn't exist anywhere yet. That is, the problem of developing the American player (which has unique cultural and logistical challenges) has not yet been solved yet by anyone.

 

My major disagreement is this: you are breaking it down to a matter of probability. I believe that player development, in the first few stages especially, has nothing to do with probability. Even the most special of talents will need need to be nurtured (not necessarily by a coach, which is where a great "culture" could provide other ways to nurture talent) and provided opportunities in order to really blossom.

Infrastructure is a huge part of providing those things, but I think culture is just as important.

edit: Are you saying that the immediate investment should be in coaches or scouts who are tasked with identifying young talents? I'm trying to figure out what you are saying should be the specific area of investment.

 

And that's also where the culture and density arguments come in.

It's not just a matter of identifying talent. The reason density is important is not that it's easier to identify talent when everyone is close together (though it is). It's that talent doesn't develop in a vacuum. The main benefit is that the best players can play against each other on a regular basis and learn by facing strong opposition.

While you can argue that great athletes are born rather than made, great players are not only great athletes. If you're just looking for elite athletes, you get guys like Jordan Morris -- an elite athlete who didn't develop his left foot until he was already a pro, because he could get away with not having a left foot before then.

 

Good post.

 

There is evidence for that. For example the Barcelona group that became the core of the 2010 Spanish team. The Rosario group that became the core of the 2014 Argentina team. Currently, the suburbs of France are said to be the best developers in the world.
'
Edit: What is also really interesting is that Barcelona and Rosario were notable for also having a school of world class coaches developing at around the same time or just before those world class players. FYI, Guardiola is from Barcelona and Bielsa from Rosario.

Edit 2: Sorry, still developing this thought. So, is it world class players benefitting from growing up together or is it world class coaches identifying and promoting talent? It's hard to say. Maybe it's even both.

 

I disagree when it comes truly world class, elite talent. Pulisic wasn't taught to catch the ball with his feet from 50 yards pass. When he nutmegged the morroco defender with a bouncing touch by a toe poke- no one taught him to do that move. When you watch Messi glide through defenders and bounce off of guys with amazing balance- no one taught him that. Just like no one taught Barry Sanders how to juke 3 defenders at once. These crazy, elite talents were born with the ability. They were exposed to the sport and they picked it up.

The best analogy I have is giftedness. A person with a 90 IQ, will need good instruction in Math for average skills. If you expose them to math, but don't give them good instruction- they may never look at it again. A person 1 or 2 standard deviation from the norm- will learn math from bad instructors and surpass average ppl. With really good instruction, they may become really intelligent professors or engineers.

But a guy with 3 standard deviations- who him a math book and he or she may create ground breaking transformations in math related field with little to no instruction. That person will be drawn to math related fields like animal to water dying of thirst. And that internal draw will drive their success. Most instructors won't add much to what they can do until they can get to very advanced levels.

When we talk about finding XI players to play in the top 4 teams in the top 4 leagues, we're talking about guys closer to three standard deviations than 1 or 2.

Development is important to get more good MLS players. IMO- to find more guys like Pulisic-- its just better infrastructure to find those kids younger. And the larger population or sample pool you have- the more of those that exist in the pool.

My whole point being- the higher quality players we want- the less they need the perfect environment. The more players we want of those players, the larger sampling pool we need.

The reason the US can get so many medals in the Olympics is bc we have a very large sample pool to pull from. The reason the NBA can be filled with US, hall of fame level players, is bc our sampling pool is 14 million kids playing a year.

Instruction matters but it matters less and less the more extreme the talent that you're looking for. imo

 

I completely disagree. The reason density is important is that it creates a richer sampling pool. Kids stay longer, more peers to reinforce passion and just a larger, richer pool to find those ppl that are 3 standard deviations away.

But when you're trying to find the diamond in the rough talent- its all about how large the pool is and how good are you in finding that diamond. Its not about how well you can polish it.

 

That's funny. I talked with Mark Pulisic once, and I asked him the first things he started doing with Christian when he was a little kid. I was surprised when he said that he used to throw the ball up in the air for him to control.

Even the most supremely gifted people with natural talents still need environments that nurture and provide opportunity for that talent to develop and showcase itself. If Pulisic had never played soccer, he wouldn't still be the same player he is today just because of the gifts that he was born with. Similarly, if he had played rec soccer, he wouldn't have gotten close to the level that he has.

How many Pulisics or other star talents have we missed out on because they were not surrounded by an environment where their soccer talent was nurtured and given opportunities to develop? Despite the millions of kids who are playing, we still have a relative few who are in environments conducive for them to actually reach a high level. That number continues to grow, but it has a long way to go before it's anywhere close to optimal.

 

I think its these two things. Growing up together as a self-sustaining peer group and giving those groups an clear path to hitting their potential.

When I talk about infrastructure- those are the things I'm referring to. I don't think "world class coaches" mean a lot for the truly elite talent in terms of development. Einstein didn't need a world class math teacher at age 4 through 12. He needed an opportunity to use his ability and grow.

Now in his career- he probably benefited from peer interaction to sharpen his ideas.

I think an error US fans and parents make is thinking that is somehow different for athletes and even more distinct for soccer. I think we get that from a lot of built in "culture" envy over the years. I think that "culture envy" is unnecessary.

Passion and intensity is so much around the individual and parents/peers impact are just different than we think it is. It's less monkey see, monkey do. Its more encouragement/support and finding peer groups of shared interests, abilities and passions.

I think many take away from Pulisic's path to the pros that both his parents were college soccer players. I think that's the wrong focus and has very little to do with it. What we should take away is that his parents saw his passion, encouraged it and supported him so much that they paid to fly with him to Barcelona at the age of 14. Two things 1) That level of parental support is amazing. 2) No way should that family had to pay to go try out for Barcelona, arsenal, and Dortmund at age 14. The requirements of his elite talents to get to Europe were insane. And those insane requirements are 10x to 100x more of a barrier than how well he was coached at age 4 to 10- bc his talents and internal passion was so huge.

In the US, how many of our kids have access to that level of support and financial means to do that? Most of our elite athletes in other sports come from family with much more meager means.

I just don't believe you have to teach Einstein math at ages 3 to 12 at a high level. I think you just need to get them an path to showcase their abilities.

 

I do not believe this and I have no data to support it. My dad with no soccer experience did the same type of things when I was in AYSO. I don't think you have to teach that level of elite athlete those basic skills. Give them an opportunity.

I like my math and IQ analogy. If you're talking about average athletes or athletes just a bit above average- absolutely. Quality instruction gets you that much better but is not required for the really freak athletes to succeed. And for years, for some reason, we havent' considered skill part of what makes them a freak athlete but we're seeing time and again its just another part of athleticism.

If you've ever had truly athletic ppl try to teach someone else a skill, this all becomes obvious. Bc they really suck at it. They just do it. The best coaches to teach skills are the ones that had to break it down and drill it a million times over. The crazy athletic guys are just shown it- and do it. Like they were born to it.

 

For someone who is constantly throwing around the accusation that no one has any proof of their statements, this is absurdly unsourced. You were there all during Christian's childhood, were you?

If you think that Pulisic's dad didn't teach him the proper ways to control a ball or teach him the right way to practice, I think you're insane.

Do you think no one ever took Messi aside -- even though his dad was a coach at his first youth club and was at a top pro club by 6 -- and taught him how to strike a ball properly?

Do you think it is a coincidence that the best shooter in NBA history is a son of another great shooter, and spent all his days on NBA courts with NBA players and coaches?

Genetics and athletics absolutely do count, but there's absolutely no basis for your argument that instruction is meaningless and that all these guys bust out of the womb fully formed.

 

As far as basis, there is plenty of basis in dozes of domains when it comes to areas outside of sports. For some reason, we assume sports are different but they are not.

Someone within 2 standard deviations on an IQ test, will do well in school no matter the instruction. There is no reason to assume athletics is different.

Environment definitely is a factor. With good coaching, they can figure things out a little sooner. With good parents, they get encouragement.

But the idea that if Messi didn't get touch training by a highly experienced dad/coach at age 4 to 10 -he wouldn't be messi- is complete bunk.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7109330/

 

I do not think there are enough parents in the USA that care enough to work with their kids to make them better soccer players to make "relying" on parents to develop players a decent idea.
I once had a team (U14) that had an extended break. I gave them a "homework" assignment that consisted of three tasks. One of those tasks required two additional people to accomplish. Because of the scattered nature of that team I knew that parents or relatives or friends to accomplish mastering that skill.
When the team returned, with an assignment sheet they were supposed to have parents sign and acknowledge the tasks were done, at least mostly, correctly. Every team member brought the sheet back apparently signed and acknowledged, But only three players actually showed improvement in the skill that required help to execute and two of those were able to work together as the were the only two that lived close enough to each other. The other improver actually figured out a way to work on the skill alone. When I got home that evening I had a chance to look at the returned forms and (there were 16 players on the team) 10 of them actually had the signatures obviously forged and one of the other 6 had a note that actually said, "We don't have the time to work with Kevin on something as unimportant as this."

While parental help is ideally suited for many basic skills it is unlikely that most parents recognize the value for their kids.
I don't really like the fact that 95% or more of the skill development comes from formal, or semi-formal, instruction and very very little from kids just practicing on their own.
It is not ideal at all but it is what it is in most of the USA.

Maybe, once we go through a few more generations of players we might get better at parents being involved in private practice. A few of the first I ever coached are now grandparents and their grand kids are the first generation that I think might actually benefit from parental help and instruction about soccer.

It takes time and patience for the underlying strata of parents to become solid enough for parental help to really make a difference other than in a very few cases. Just because there ae a few does not meant that we are there, yet. Our WC in '26 may be the breakout point but I doubt it. I think the first time we will really see overall development improvement will be no earlier than 2030-2040 when the first group of soccer players from the generation I coached could become great-grandparent's.

 

Cite.

No one is arguing athletic people do better on average, or that's it's not a key part.

What you arguing is that elite athletes do not benefit from instruction. The equivalent is that a brilliant person with little to no math training could solve a difficult math proof out of sheer brilliance without instruction or practice.

We're talking about the elite of the worldwide elite, here.

Again, a completely unsupported statement.

If Messi had been born in the USA to a baseball-loving dad who didn't like soccer, he probably would have been a Marcus Giles or Mark Loretta. He sure as well wouldn't be the greatest soccer player of all time.

How would he? Maybe he starts playing soccer at 7, but his dad really loves baseball and he wants to make his dad happy, sooo.... plus he's already really good at it, so that's what he loves playing!