U17 postscript - early report for new cycle

Gersman,

Didn't know you wrote the article. I value your enthusiasm and info digging for us here on BS--we would all know alot less about the goings-on of the youth development in this country without it.

As for my vitriol, I am sorry. There is no need for it. My apologies.

But, I could have sworn you yourself (albeit far more diplomatic in your wording than me) weren't happy with the boomball either. If I am right about this, why the softball questions, and subsequent defense of Ellingers tactics in your article?

You brought up the Argentinian coach's quote (though it was actually the Spanish coach who said it), saying that the loss isn't the tragedy, the tragedy would be if none of the players were representing Spain in the next several years---

well this is a great quote, but one that I think is an argument for us in the "no-longball style" camp.

What that coach was saying was that because Spain played great soccer, had exceptional skills, vision, team conception, etc., that it would be a tragedy for players that play technical, smart, attractive soccer not to be representing Spain in the future--in essence, (yeah, I could be reading too much into it) it was a statement AGAINST ugly, occassionally effective soccer (which the US happen to play). The Spanish coach meant that winning the tourney was less important than developing SKILLFUL intelligent players.

 

I think you are absolutely right, except for one thing. The systems are not "ruthless", they are in fact FUN. I don't know if you have watched youth sides train or play on a top club but I can assure you they enjoy themselves, and since clubs like Corinthians or Barcelona are concerned about how the ball is handled, you get to train WITH the ball and not run around without it to get into that odd concept known as "good shape".

There is no question there is a lot of pressure on a big club, and indeed not all kids can handle it. That may be "ruthless". But in the end the same human ambition is there for a kid who wants to make his high school team, and the disappointment is there too when you fail or lose. Maybe the only real difference is that when you are 15 or 16 and the big club you are associated with tells you to leave, that you are not good enough, you can try for another youth side somewhere (tough to relocate though), or you end up playing locally in 4th or 3rd or maybe in the end 2nd tier pro in a couple of years, making a salary about a tenth or twentieth of what it could have been.

 

I don't think the U.S. team necessarily are not skillful or play ugly soccer, I believe they were just a little out of their element against teams that were MORE skillful and tactically aware. The response to that pressure was to play long balls. This is illustrated by their attractive play against weaker opponents.
The truth is, nations such as Spain and Brazil still produce a larger amount of quality talent to the U.S. As the system in the U.S. grows and matures the gap will decrease, as it has over the past 10 years.
The excitement over the better quality talent in the US raises expectations (perhaps too much). Do we really think we have the best youth players in the world?
Given that, i am excited about the potential of some of these players for a continued Nat career, and am excited about the continued improvement of our full Nats because of this system

 

Gers, your site is a dream for real soccer fans. Some people need to realize how in the dark we'd be without it.

 

question for gersman

Any truth to the rumor Rogers has been invited back to Bayern in the spring??


Also, Gersman, your articles are great and the effort you put in keeoing us up to date on the younger players is appreciated!!!

 

Spector & Defense

Karl -

The version that I read of Spector & defense was different than what you seem to believe.

My version was that Ellinger had lightly messed around with the idea of Spector at defense, and finally decided to give him a shot against a youth team from Wales. In that game, Spector's first ever game in defense, he happened to be marking a forward that a Man U scout was watching. Spector ate up the guy, the Man U scout was impressed, and the opportunity was born.

If my theory is correct, Ellinger gets credit for the vision to see Spector as a possible defender, but not credit for remaking his game or perserving over time (as he did with Gaven in moving him to midfield) to find the guy a new position. More like, "Let's run a test shaft here," and Ellinger instantly struck gold. In this version, by far the bulk of the credit should go to Spector (and his previous coaches) for having the native ability to be a dominating defender, not Ellinger, although of course Ellinger did play a favorable role in the identification process.

Personally, I'd have these guys doing soccer tennis and intense keepaway drills for about the first 9 months of residency, before really worrying much about 11 vs. 11 tactics, serious match play, fitness, those kinds of things. They need to improve their fundamentals to play a better game -- the argument that technique makes tactics possible. But then again, they haven't contacted me about coaching the program.

GersMan, thanks for the report. Good to see those Chicago kids doing well!

 

Re: Spector & Defense

Bravo--seems you get it, actually. But, when would they fit their weightlifting regimine in? (sarcasm)

I was actually aghast to read an article where it was mentioned that they have Freddy weightlifting down in Bradenton.

 

Re: Spector & Defense

Of course, had Spector not been struggling at forward specifically because he was competing with the superior forwards in residency, is it likely that he ever switches to defense? If he's instead back home in Chicago, dominating defenders as a forward, he's neither our best young defending prospect nor heading to Manchester.

 

Re: Spector & Defense

JR, as you well know in business in government, if something happens 'under your watch', it doesn't necessarily matter exactly HOW it happened. You get the credit, or the blame. Whether moving Spector was the end result of some incredibly shrewd insight and deep advance planning, or whether it was "hey, let's give it a shot" -- in the end, does it matter? Not for Jonathan Spector's career, that's for sure.

That fact that Ellinger might have thought, "Hey let's give it a shot" when throughout his youth career he was almost always an attacking mid or a striker -- well, that shows SOME insight at the very least, it seems to me.

A subtext in this comment, and something you addressed in others, was this: how much does a player improve as a result of being in Bradenton, and how much of his form at the end of the cycle be attributable to the fact that he had a lot of talent at the start?

Well, it's both, to varying degress depending on each player. Some will improve in ways they WOUDN'T have had they not been there. Some will improve in ways they would have had they been there or NOT. Some won't improve at all. And some will regress.

Why? Each player's development "arc" is different. Some have lots of upside...some have little. And sometimes its hard to tell.

Well, this particular regimen would certainly put you at odds with most of the youth academies at professional clubs who spend a lot of time to issues tatical, game reading, and positional play, as well as technical drills.

You've seen these Euro clubs -- these kids know where to go on the field, when to get there, and what to do with the ball when it arrives.

Look, again, our kids fall short against Spain and Brazil because our kids have had only two years of pre-professional youth soccer training, while the Euro and SA teams have had FIVE years of true PROFESSIONAL training -- 35 to 45 tough club matches a year, including national team work. A 9-month training regimen of keep away games and soccer tennis is not going to overcome this inherent deficiency in our program.

 

Re: Re: Spector & Defense

You must not know much about the human body or weightlifting.

 

Re: Re: Spector & Defense

Gee, I guess based on your astute understanding of how to train, youth academies at professional clubs ought to get rid of their weight training rooms and regimens?

Quick...let's send out the telegrams!!!

Oh, by the way, this just in: soccer is an ATHLETIC sport...you know, where you have to have strength, and speed, and explosiveness?

A properly structured resistence training program, couple with plyometrics / balance/agility/speed/ flexibility training is an integral part of a complete program. Even for someone as young as Freddy.

You know, first you come on here, and you insult Gersman, who is trying his best to provide a unique perspective.

Second, you utter this complete nonsense.

Then, third, on another thread, you accuse me of advocating boomball, when I did no such thing. What I DID say was that our kids, given the level of training and competition they have, are inevitably going to be outplayed by these young pros. And when that happens, and they whack the ball in panic, it doesn't really bother me all that much.

Why?? It's simple...even someone like you can understand it.

Because these games don't mean much, and the future for these kids is ahead of them, when they finally get into the pro and national team ranks -- where, believe it or not, boom ball is the exception.

Of course it seems that at your level of mental processing, it's impossible for you to understand this particular distinction, which isn't very nuanced.

So let's see....

strike one-- you insult Gersman

strike two--you display your naivete about training

strike three--you completely misrepresent my position.

Hmmmm.....seems like you should be OUTTA here.

 

Yet this same logic, "It was under his watch so he gets a bit of credit." does not apply to the style of play exhibited by the U17's? Of course it does. The idea that the other teams were made of professional players is a non-starter for two reasons. One, it doesn't matter if the player is in Bradenton because he is a professional or an amateur. He's still the same player. Two, the professional players we played against were each coming from a different club. There was no common tactical understanding until a month or two before the U17 tournament. The difference was they were calm under pressure and were able to do the simple things well.

One can say that "Well the pressure of the professional environment was the difference" but there is no reason that Bradenton could not have the same "do it well or go home" attitude. Sending a kid home from Bradenton is not a failure but a success. Every time Cobinho, I'm sorry, Ashe played kick-and-chase his coaches should have thought about sending him home. Ashe doesn't play that way because he is an Amateur but because his coaches WANTED him to. In Gers' article, Ellinger rightly recognizes the poor play of the Americans. What I don't hear is his role in that or how he is going to fix it. He shifts blame to his player's decision making.

Their superior tactical ability is because they do not feel under pressure when the ball is at their feet. It comes from skill. Their skill gave them the time and the presence of mind to think. They wanted to look like the ball belonged at their feet and not embarrass themselves. On the other hand, they did not share a common tactical understanding as they play for different clubs in Brazil, Spain, etc.

Not me. I think it's a fine idea. What shocks me is that when reading Jules Journal they were doing core strength training just before the tournament or even during it (I'm not sure of the time line but it was after they arrived). That will add nothing to their game, that close to the tournament, yet could easily make them sore and exhausted at the WRONG time. I still question their preparation for this tournament.

 

I am sorry, this is patently illogical. Players change -- improve or regress to varying degrees, or simply stay the same and fail to improve. They are not static entities who come fully formed.

Again, I would venture to guess that most of the kids on the Spanish and Brazilian rosters have been pros for 3 to 5 years. Our guys had two years at Bradenton. Give me 50% to 150% more training time in a much more demanding environment, with most other things (talent, athleticism) being equal, and guess what?? Generally speaking, I am going to be way better than you.

But here's the flaw in this idea -- the kid that REPLACES the one you send home has even LESS time training in the hypercompetive environment (such as it is in Bradenton) than the kid who may, just may, get beyond his problems if you gave him more time. (Then again, he may not).

In other countries, if I want to go get a replacement guy, I just head down to Santos, or to Barcelona, watch guys, consult with the coaches, and pluck somebody out, knowing the kind of tough demanding training this kid has gotten.

As you hint, a group of more advanced players with minimal tactical preparation will almost always beat weaker players with lots of tactical understanding. In addtion, player who have been steeped in the game at a professional level for 5 years have an EASIER time getting a tactical plan under their belts, and can do it quicker, than those who have been in a pre-professional environment for just TWO years.

I guess I just don't buy the idea that if we changed coaches, that somehow we would be THAT much better. And really, who cares? These games are simply not that important.

Maybe a Bob Bradley or a Sigi Schmid would do better with this group, but in the end, does it REALLY matter?? I would much rather have Bob Bradley take Eddie Gaven, and Sigi take Memo, ManUs youth coaches take Spector, at 17/18 years of age and turn them into REAL pros.

Ellinger, for all his vitures and his flaws, simply can't do that. And it's unrealistic to expect him to do so.

 

Karl, Most times I like your posts as they are self consistent and logical. However, this one I can't quite figure out. The players did not exhibit the benefits of good coaching. I could pick it a part bit by bit but suffice it to say . . . .

Yes it really matters that a job paying in the six figure range is done as well as it can be. If it's not then we are sure someone else is willing to take it. Our players deserve the benefit of tough decisions. If they can find someone who can do a better job then I think we would all agree that the current coach should be replaced. Now I'm not saying that Ellinger needs to go. I'm not qualified to make that judgment and I can only think of a few BS members who are qualified to have an opinion which should be taken seriously. However, the fact remains that even John Ellinger himself admits that his players made poor decisions. They are HIS players and the first step to fixing the player's decision making process is for their coach to take responsibility for it. Half hearted explanations and blame shifting are not solutions. If he doesn't take responsibility for fixing the player selection, the player retention process and/or the style of play then overall mediocrity and random progress are all we can hope for.

 

Well, there's always somebody out there who can do a better job at ANY job than the guy who's got it now...

You know, it's great to be a fan, and great to want your teams to win, or play well, every time they step on the field. But lots can get in the way of that. Sure, bad coaching can contribute mightily (and believe me I've seen VERY bad coaching at the youth level) but is that a problem?? -- assuming that bad game-day tactical coaching can be even CLASSIFIED as a "problem" for a U17s with more than half their careers ahead of them.

We forget. These guys are KIDS. I don't know how old you are, but tell me -- did you have your shi$t together at 16 or 17??

The performance of kids can be -- indeed, often is -- erratic, even with the very best coaching available.

In my view, Ellinger should NEVER be judged on the performance of his teams in the U17 WC finals, and certainly not on the peformance of one or two games in that tournament.

To use the language of business, John Ellinger's deliverable is to select the best possible group of kids he can at 15 (and believe me, that ain't easy), and then over two years (a very very short time) nurture and prepare a core group of those players to move into the professional ranks, and, finally, have two to three every cycle eventually become senior Nats 3 to 5 years out of the program.

That's it.

Not to play a certain way in any given game, or to win this tournament or that tournament, or to beat Spain and Brazil, or to avoid playing boomball against Spain and Brazil.

Expecting anything more is simply putting the cart way way WAY in front of the horse.

 

Re: Re: Re: Spector & Defense

And you must not know about soccer. Call it even.

 

Re: Re: Re: Spector & Defense

Well smarty pants, I have played pro soccer, and coached many children into nats and pros--YOU, on the other hand had one child playing select soccer, IIRC.

If weightlifting is so important in soccer, how come a bunch of lanky 120-lb Sierra Leonians made us, the weightlifters, look slow, stiff, and unskilled (except for that African kid we have). Not to mention Brazil--did you see those spaghetti arms on that bunch?!

So Strike Three is "Misrepresenting Karl's Position?"

You should have three strikes for pretending you know what you are talking about when we all know you just started following the game when you signed jr. up for soccer.

 

GersMan,

I have to agree with Isisbud a bit on his criticism. The editorial tone you take in the one paragraph of the article clearly doesn't belong in the article. The article is an interview with Ellinger and not a personal editorial by yourself. The criticism isn't really in what you said, or what your opinion is, but rather saying it in an article where it really doesn't belong.

Clearly you can bring up the fans disappointment and can also bring up the possibility that these expectations might have been higher than warranted, but to simply take a snide swipe at these fans is really more of an editorial and not an interview piece. You weren't interviewing yourself, you were interviewing Ellinger.

I don't mean this as in "lock yourself in your room, shut down the site and never show your face again." The site is much appreciated and you do a great job, but in my opinion taking that tone in this piece _was_ a mistake.

Other than that, my only other gripe would be when he mentioned that a "better draw" might have allowed us to progress further, you should have questioned him on resting many of our best players against Spain when a single point would have allowed us to avoid Brazil in the quarterfinals. Maybe you felt that it was the right move, but it was the right question to ask anyway.

 

Again, strangely, I slightly agree with Isisbud if we're talking about free weights here.

I don't think I'd want soccer players mindlessly pumping iron. I'd stick more to resistance training and such. Flexibility and calisthenics, that sort of thing. Cross-training: swimming in particular, but also possibly bicycling, rollerblading and, if they were up for it, an athletically based dance program. Not necessarily ballet, but ballet works. I think apporaches hitting as many possible muscle groups at once and also mixing in cardio-vascular fitness are more appropriate for this sport.

I just don't see the value of spending time pumping free weights for a soccer player when the time can be spent training in ways that are likely more productive for a soccer player.

When it comes to rehabbing certain injuries, weight machines can be quite valuable in allowing you to isolate muscle groups (it can also have value in sports were a particular small set of muscle groups are disproportionately more important than others), but in terms of general preparedness for the sport of soccer, isolating muscle groups (what free weights and universal machines are best at doing) is probably an inefficient use of training time and possibly more dangerous in terms of injury. YMMV.

I also think that generally all sports in the USA could probably do with a little less time in the weight rooms and a little more time actually playing the sport in question. In particular, American soccer players likely don't spend nearly as much time playing soccer growing up as our competitors, so we could probably do with getting in as much game time as possible.

 

Then the other guy gets the job. When we start making the case for the acceptance of mediocrity then we are part of the problem, not the solution.

"prepare a core group of those players to move into the professional ranks" That's right. That's the measure.

Ellinger does need to be evaluated on his players ability to handle the pressure and look like they are ready for the pro's. I have seen that U17 team live once and in six other games. They played the same way each time. There is a reason I like to call Ashe 'Cobinho'. It is because he has always played like Cobi every time I've seen him play. That shouldn't be tolerated by the coach even if it helps him beat Cameroon or Korea. Winning is not the point. Grooming them to play attractive professional soccer is the point. You and I agree on that.

 

Bayern liked what they saw. Rogers has been asked back for another trial in the spring. He apparently has some trials with other teams in Europe this winter. In meantime he is training with J.Klinsmann and Nick Theslof. Not sure what leagues he is playing in.

 

Do we ready to spend ANOTHER 2 Million US Dollars within next two years for ANOTHER Boomball team? :>)

 

How about another perspective?

How about...

Do we spend $2 million within the next two years -- money supplied mostly by Nike anyway -- to prepare the next Freddy Adu, the next Eddie Gaven, the next Jonathan Spector, the next Memo Gonzales -- for potentially very successful professional careers and possibly key slots in future senior national teams?

 

Who boomball ??

The team always reflect the personality of the coach, Keep that always on mind....

 

I think Gers doesn't have to justify inserting his opinions into this article - magazine articles routinely take a slant view, especially when the subject of the article is being interviewed.

You don't have to agree with the author's opinion, but there's nothing wrong with him expressing it. And as for labeling it an editorial - Please! Feature articles, by definition, are heavy on a writer's style and viewpoint. Even in a newspaper, the feature articles are exempt from the "just the facts, maam" approach to newswriting.

Finally, it's time to look past the Adu hype and see our u-17 team for what they're worth. Young kids doing their best in a makeshift system that attempts to compensate for this country's lack of soccer culture, pro structure, or consensus training.

We've said before that the Dutch system has the best youth training - where was Holland in this WYC? Only one team has been to each youth WC, and most of it has been under Ellinger's watch. Regardless of their failure to advance, this current team only lost to the teams that made the final. Ellinger seems aware of the reasons why they didn't perform better - as well as determined to work to improve them. Adu himself has called Ellinger the best coach he's ever had. I think an especial talent of Ellinger's is his ability to foster these boys and unite them as a team.

I wouldn't want Isisbud coaching my kid.

I'd be happy sending him to Brandenton