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

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by schrutebuck, Nov 20, 2023.

  1. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    If it was all a trick of birth and great players are just born with it, we already have enough raw numbers that some of those who just pop out great players would have appeared already. If players are just born good, why have no good players been born in the US? That's some really bad luck in the genetics lottery.
    russ, dlokteff, Elninho and 1 other person repped this.
  2. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    I am not saying they don't benefit. I am saying the quality is less important. Big, key difference. 90 IQ needs instruction and tutors. 100 Simply average instruction. 120 IQ- Exposure, a book and occasional help. 150 Iq- teach them to read and let them go.

    Another part of my point- is that when we talk about wanting a team of Pulisic level talent- we're talking about 150IQ is range comparison in athletic talent. That is just by a normal distribution model of an average population's athletic ability.

    See my citation on motor skill development as well as a reference. Add in a truly 3 standard deviation athlete- and you get an athlete who needs very little instruction. Exposure, playing time, and high quality peers.
  3. gogorath

    gogorath Member+

    United States
    May 12, 2019
    Again, these are just statements. No, every 150 IQ person can't pick up super complex math just by reading.

    And that cite is amazing ... except no one's premise here is that a 10 year old can pick up the same coordination as an 18 year old in a short period of practice.

    It's that a person who practices and works hard at 10 years old on something will be ahead of someone who starts at 18. Of course a ********ing 18 year is better at weak hand darts than a 10 year old, who probably barely has the strength to get the dart there. The 18 year old, weak hand or no, has also been playing sports for loner than the other person has been alive, as well!

    This is why no one takes academic studies seriously. The complete and utter lack of common sense and desperate attempts to simulate complex systems with basic experiments rings hollow to anyone who does real work. Anywho....

    Your premise seems to be that if Messi picked up soccer at 18, he'd still be the same player because everything's natural ability.

    I'm not really sure why it is so hard for you to believe there's multiple factors to someone being good, but at this point, you just seem very locked into your conclusion.
  4. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    I'm done. Have a good weekend.
  5. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    It kinds all boils down to when people argue hard work versus talent when the facts are the real top people in any field are the talented ones that work hard. Arguing either or misses the point.
    russ, Elninho, Burr and 1 other person repped this.
  6. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    Bc 1) they still need exposure. 2) They still need support by a system to get them from their local community to the pros and 3) They a support group (peers and parents) to reinforce their journey
  7. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    No one is arguing work vs talent.
  8. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    Development versus trick of birth ain't far off.
  9. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    Yes it is. Trick of birth is most of life. Trick of birth is everything from culture, environment, socio economics, social determinants of health... just about everything.
  10. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    Substitute trick of genetics for trick of birth then if you want to get into semantics.

    But even your arguments admit that "They still need support by a system to get them from their local community to the pros." And that's basically the entire other side of the coin. It's not just being born with it, they still need development, a system to get them from point a to point b, and they need to commit to that system and put in the effort to get there. That system will include coaching, competition, rewards to keep them going, a ton of stuff. And that's basically all that is being argued. Its not just something you are born with, it requires development and a means to get there beyond, I am born gifted and thus will succeed.
  11. eagercolin

    eagercolin Member

    United States
    Aug 25, 2017
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I was travelling and had to miss this game. Apparently it devolved into a debate about nature v nurture? Is that what Dest was so upset about?
    russ, dlokteff, Elninho and 3 others repped this.
  12. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    I am saying they don't need a lot of artificial development.

    I haven't argued - not once- a purely genetic argument. Somehow its getting misunderstood as that. I'll own that maybe I'm not communicating well between meetings.

    I am a saying they need
    1. Elite genetic talent thats' about 3 standard deviations from normal (meaning very very rare)
    2. Parental support (self discipline, accountability, work ethic, emotional support, etc)
    3. Peer group of similar levels of passion and ability (can be an academy, school team, or local league)
    4. Opportunity to play for the pros (academies, scouts, olympic programs, etc)
    5. Basic coaching

    And those are in order of priority imo. They do not need an intense neighborhood or familial culture around soccer. They don't need high level coaching at the some golden age of development.

    They need the 5 things above. Coaching is way down the list but on the list.

    Other things that help those things and may offsset not being strong in others
    1. Wealthy family
    2. Family professional experience with soccer
    3. Culture that loves the sport and increases exposure and peer pressure
    4. Elite, high level coaching from as early as possible.

    The second 4 are not requirements. The first 5 are requirements. The second four might be able to offset some deficits of the top 5 but all is really needed is the top 5. For some reason, ppl stress the bottom 4.
  13. FanOfFutbol

    FanOfFutbol Member+

    The Mickey Mouse Club or The breakfast Club
    May 4, 2002
    Nat'l Team:
    Probably he got so upset because of a lack of "quality" nurturing.
    But I also blame some/most of the players nearby when it started. Someone should have physically restrained him BEFORE he underwent his complete meltdown.
    While the meltdown itself is his fault it is also the fault of others that allowed it to go on and on and on and on. But we do NOT have players that are true leaders so no one was willing to take the responsibility for dragging him away. There were many half hearted attempts but not one that actually did what was needed.

    In other words Dest was a fool and the rest of the team were cowards only looking out for themselves.
  14. TimB4Last

    TimB4Last Member+

    May 5, 2006
    Welcome, I’ll try to clarify. Dest was upset because when he kicked the ball into the stratosphere and received the first yellow card, he tried to explain to the Ref that he was simply demonstrating to one and all that the ball was overinflated. Apparently the Ref laughed and said, “Mr Dest, the only thing here that’s inflated is your ego,” Dest blew him a kiss and got himself sent off.
    Bruce S, nobody and Pragidealist repped this.
  15. FanOfFutbol

    FanOfFutbol Member+

    The Mickey Mouse Club or The breakfast Club
    May 4, 2002
    Nat'l Team:
    It is not "normal" misunderstanding you are facing but rather it is intentional misunderstanding to make the arguments continue.
    I do agree here but the whole world gets a lot wrong in determining who coaches who. In every form of education the lowest paid and the least prestigious teaching is teaching the young kids. While we venerate and pay those teaching at high levels the most. We do that in spite of people saying that kids are the "most important thing."
    In education and soccer and most other sports we fail our youngest participants by "benign neglect" we put our worst teachers and coaches with the most important people that could be helped and we throw the most educated and trained in the easier place and have them teaching people that only need a little help.

    It is like, but worse than, retailers saying that their clerks etc. are their most valuable employees while paying them only starvation wages.
    russ, TheHoustonHoyaFan and Pragidealist repped this.
  16. MayaDempsey

    MayaDempsey Member+

    Jul 29, 2014
    Michigan Bucks
    I would guess that French hoops culture and infrastructure is pretty similar to our soccer culture and infrastructure.

    The genetic lottery makes as much sense as any other explanation given we’ve produced good players in almost every other sport known to man over the years….with disparate levels of available coaching, competition, popularity, etc.
    Pragidealist repped this.
  17. RossD

    RossD Member+

    Aug 17, 2013
    Colorado Rapids
    We are in crises if you think we "should" win in 26. If you don't have that expectation than there's no crises.
    It's the Top 8, not Top 9. To get in you have to knock someone out. How "good" we are is all relative to the other teams. There is no magic number that if we score that high, independent of what other teams score, we win. It's like grading on a curve where the top student gets an A and everyone else has their scores based off the top student's. Thus, you are not in complete control of what grade you could get.
    "We just need to get better." isn't enough. We need to get better at a rate higher than our competition. And that's damn hard.
    russ repped this.
  18. Yowza

    Yowza Member+

    DC United
    United States
    Oct 23, 2019
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think results wise, this is spot on. 6 months ago I would’ve been on the quarters or fail train, but there are circumstances where the US gets a contender in the first knock out round. That’s why I changed my expectation to winning the group. We’re a number one seed playing at home, and if we get a group of death with Italy or something, then something’s not quite right with that team to be a two seed and we have to take advantage of it. So, win the group, then we’ll see, but they would have to be extremely unlucky to get a big dog after winning the group.

    The other part, not so much tied to results, is if the team plays well, which we agree and disagree on all the time. While I never felt in crisis, I think that was just hyperbole from one poster meant as a put down, I am concerned. I see some regression, which isn’t cause for concern in itself, but it makes me anxious because the team is young and should be growing. Many other people watch and don’t feel anxious about how they’re playing, for various reasons, and I’m not going to change their mind.
  19. IndividualEleven

    Mar 16, 2006
    First round in '26 at home is a failure. If you didn't take care of business in group stages to avoid the eventual champion then that's a failure. It's possible as a Group Stage winner to run into the eventual champion in the first round, but that's low %ages
    dspence2311 repped this.
  20. dspence2311

    dspence2311 Member+

    Oct 14, 2007
    I wonder if the Gregg wars have distorted our views of what this generation of players is capable of. We can talk about grit and “fight” or Dempsey’s big EPL season or whatever. But we have never had a generation of players who have consistently played important roles at top 5 league clubs. Not by a long shot. Nor have we had the quality depth we have now. It just isn’t arguable, IMO, that this is the most talented pool we have ever had by a clear margin. To say that getting out of the group at home is good enough smacks of framing for some other reason.
  21. IndividualEleven

    Mar 16, 2006
    The mentality monsters and great athletes have to be interested in playing futbol. Canada have had David and Davies. How great is their development system? In the US basketball, American football, and baseball would be competing for those players.

    I do believe has had some bad luck with injuries to Stuart Holden, John O'brien, and Christian Pulisic.
  22. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    There is no doubt that this group is the most talented we've had. The disconnect is that fans thing that automatically think that means we'll do better in the World Cup via results. But cynical tactics with lessor talent will take you pretty far with a little luck.

    We play much, much better soccer now. Passing out of pressure from the back, managing field tilt from always on our side to largely on the opponents side against even good teams and breaking teams down with combination play, ball movement and 1v1 play instead of lumping balls from midfield into a crowded box with big guys.

    The US is better. However Morocco made a 4th place finish with cynical, deep blocks and counter attacking against better teams. It's generally not a way to win a world cup but with some luck it can get you a lot deeper than you deserve. No one thinks Morroco is a top 4 team in the sport. Germany and Spain both were out at group stage with more accomplished players and managers. They are inarguably better teams than Morocco.

    Simply fact is- this sport and particularly the WC how far you go is not indicative of how good your team is. It's a poor measure of progress. It's one that is inevitable to be popular but overall a poor judge. By being a top 5 team in terms of quality, consistently over time- you just get more bites at the apple.

    Lastly- our overall value as a team will not be if we have 4 player playing in top 4 teams. It will be when we have 23 players, all with high quality. Our squad needs XI players of Pulisic, Weah, Wes and Musah quality. With 1 or 4 players of a higher quality.

    In short, we're a lot better. We're not as good as some say we are. We still have a ways to go to be a top 5 world team and even then.. it won't guarantee WC results.
    RossD, Shabs, MPNumber9 and 2 others repped this.
  23. don Lamb

    don Lamb Member+

    United States
    Aug 31, 2017
    There has never been a question about the talent level of this pool -- basically everyone agrees that they are the most talented group we've had.

    However, you reference two other points without recognizing that they are just now really starting to come to fruition. Those two things are 1. our players having truly valuable roles on their teams (see Pulisic, McKennie, Dest with still a ways to go considering guys like Turner, Reyna, etc.), and 2. our depth (see Tillman, Pepi, Balogun, etc.).
    russ repped this.
  24. dspence2311

    dspence2311 Member+

    Oct 14, 2007
    So you’re saying that others are tactically better than we are. Sounds like coaching.
  25. IndividualEleven

    Mar 16, 2006
    More talent generally means you do better. That's the way sport works. There are other factors involved, such as coaching, injuries, luck on the day, mentality, etc. Nothing is automatic, but increased expectations are reasonable.

    The concern in the here and now has been the weak performances in friendlies and competitive matches under Gregg. Jamaica will provide a good test. USSF are in negotiations with Brazil for a pre-tournament friendly. Hopefully, the team don't get embarrassed yet again.
    Namdynamo and Pragidealist repped this.

Share This Page