National Team. Why not?

DrSoccer wrote:Coachr ill do you 1 better i had dinner w/sunil. Believe it or not he was aware of the same problems with youth soccer that we & many other people discuss here. (including our neck of the woods) He said the biggest problem was that for-pay clubs controlled the development of US players. He/they were concerned about the ability level of coaches who worked with the players. But he also realized that us soccer needed the cooperation of the Hassans and other Club owners to make the needed changes. US soccer has not authority over clubs, the only thing they can do to show that a club isn't developing players is not invite their players to us camps. (hmmmmm) Its been slow progress on the mens side but we now have the US academy which is moving in the right direction. Most players play for free, 4-5 times a week, and no HS soccer. MLS clubs have their own youth programs now and can sign their own players (hence an incentive to develop the PLAYER,not the team). The curve on the girls side is falling behind. Girls clubs hold much greater control, and ecnl did not address player development, it was just a way for clubs to wrestle ultimate control of the revenue stream away from usysa.

BackDraft wrote:

DrSoccer wrote:Coachr ill do you 1 better i had dinner w/sunil. Believe it or not he was aware of the same problems with youth soccer that we & many other people discuss here. (including our neck of the woods) He said the biggest problem was that for-pay clubs controlled the development of US players. He/they were concerned about the ability level of coaches who worked with the players. But he also realized that us soccer needed the cooperation of the Hassans and other Club owners to make the needed changes. US soccer has not authority over clubs, the only thing they can do to show that a club isn't developing players is not invite their players to us camps. (hmmmmm) Its been slow progress on the mens side but we now have the US academy which is moving in the right direction. Most players play for free, 4-5 times a week, and no HS soccer. MLS clubs have their own youth programs now and can sign their own players (hence an incentive to develop the PLAYER,not the team). The curve on the girls side is falling behind. Girls clubs hold much greater control, and ecnl did not address player development, it was just a way for clubs to wrestle ultimate control of the revenue stream away from usysa.

The truth.

coachr wrote:

BackDraft wrote:

DrSoccer wrote:Coachr ill do you 1 better i had dinner w/sunil. Believe it or not he was aware of the same problems with youth soccer that we & many other people discuss here. (including our neck of the woods)
He said the biggest problem was that for-pay clubs controlled the development of US players. Agree, when the clubs view players as a revenue stream rather than as an investment (capital asset) to later be cashed in, development will not be a priority, winning will be the priority.
He/they were concerned about the ability level of coaches who worked with the players. But he also realized that us soccer needed the cooperation of the Hassans and other Club owners to make the needed changes. US soccer has not authority over clubs, the only thing they can do to show that a club isn't developing players is not invite their players to us camps. (hmmmmm) Its been slow progress on the mens side but we now have the US academy which is moving in the right direction. Most players play for free, 4-5 times a week, and no HS soccer. MLS clubs have their own youth programs now and can sign their own players (hence an incentive to develop the PLAYER,not the team).
The curve on the girls side is falling behind (no viable investment model, only cash flow model). Girls clubs hold much greater control, and ecnl did not address player development, it was just a way for clubs to wrestle ultimate control of the revenue stream away from usysa.

The truth.

Bet that was good curry

fourfourtwo wrote:

Ifyouonlyknew wrote:So many reasons why NTX falls short on this list. I will name a few key points starting with the least and note that this what I have experienced the years I played and what I'm noticing now. Clubs, especially Big Clubs care about the coaches producing good teams not, exceptional players, its more about quantity and not quality. The possession game is forced at such a young age the players themselves don't get the chance to play freely, experiment, or be creative. You wonder why the Europeans are 10 yrs ahead of us, their kids don't even play organized soccer until they are 12.

The possession game is not "forced" here at a young age. Very few of our winningest youth teams play possession soccer. I watched top boys players U14 to U19 at FCD College Showcase last weekend. One particular club had all teams playing the exact same style of soccer...and it looked just like their girls teams I've seen in the past. Possession? Not.

It is an American myth that top level international players don't play organized soccer until they are 12. This romanticized view that they became world class playing pick up with a cloth ball on a raggedy street lot with their buddies is a FARCE. By the time they are 12, the best of the best have already been identified and train regularly with professional clubs with real financial backing. There is no point simplifying the comparison to American kids. Yes they play more non-organized soccer than American kids, but they are also formally trained in professional systems at very early ages.

Ifyouonlyknew wrote:
California let's their academy system play 9v9 until they are 12, and yet U10 has to play 11 once they go select. It's not rocket science, small spaces guarantees plenty of touches, but its not the clubs fault all the time, parents and coaches are to blame too. Coaches are told by the clubs to focus on building teams that win games, point blank. I can say its almost true because most coaches only work on tactics, team strategy and rarley do 1v1s, 2v1s and letting the players know that you can dribble as much as you want, but use your teammates as help.

Unless you're talking about academy ages and younger, telling kids "dribble as much you want" isn't solving much of anything. Sophisticated players see the field and understand when to do what. If all you ever learned was dribble till you lose it or score, you won't compete at higher levels once defenders are just as quick/fast/strong as you.

Ifyouonlyknew wrote:
I often see this with current coaches who played in the early 80s, late 90s, yes the old guys. Hopefully the new breed of new young talented coaches weave these guys out. Lastly as a parent its is your fault that your child can't take on a player and beat them skillfully with ease, because all you care is about being on a top team.

A coach's age has nothing to do with anything. Some young coaches teach boot it str8 to the fast forward and some older coaches teach the beautiful game. I hate to dice up someone's opinions...but rubbish is rubbish.

Ifyouonlyknew wrote:
Most of these parents think skills training is a waste of time and would never bother, because "Katie" has a starting spot and is the fastest kid on the field. So think about it, 5 years from now when your DD is the big, fast, strong kid that can't beat a defender or create chances for her teammates. At that point you are most likely looking for technical trainer to improve her first touch. Perfect example is our US Women's team. All they have is athletic players who can run for days on in and love to pass, pass, pass. If you are offended, watch the last world cup when they played Japan. Remember this is just an opinion.

Can't agree with this and IMO it's mostly bass ackwards.

1) I would bet "Most" kids on a top team do skills training...regularly. We may need to visit how you define "Top".

2) U.S. Women's team has plenty players who are pretty good at 1v1. What they do after they beat a player is the issue. If they had been playing possession soccer since they were young, like you claim, they would have the sophistication to do it well.

Japan actually DOES play possession soccer and IS pass, pass, pass. Japan has fewer players that show 1v1 in games than we do. The difference is their sophistication, 1st touch, movement and decision making. They can keep the ball under pressure (as a team). We can do it only against 2nd tier competition. This is not learned overnight and you don't learn it by being ball hogs from U6 to U18 with bigger/faster 1v1 players winning you games with solo effort.

PIA has done a great job pushing the USWNT to play a different style. They haven't mastered it yet, but if the trend continues the technical players will get rewarded.

3) Of course some of it is politics. A coach with TX roots took over and lo and behold TX is now well represented on the U23s.

The overall NTX style IS a problem, but a slew of very good coaches are building young teams that are technically stellar and not dependent on 1 fast forward to score all goals and 1 fast defender to kick everything out of bounds. I see more sophistication out of some younger teams than out of some teams currently being recruited for college. We will see more NTX girls representing on our national teams...it's just a matter of time.

Just an opinon

fourfourtwo wrote:

soccerfans4u wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

coachr wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

coachr wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

coachr wrote:Chill out dude. You almost burned me with that hot air.

You read the whole thing? My bad. I'll make my post longer next time.

If it were longer I'd agree with you!

You do agree with me you just don't know it yet. Pele got started in the 1950s. The modern game is different. How old was Messi when he went pro? How old are the kids at Ajax when they first enter their system?

Talent is identified early and snapped up into formal training all over the world.

Argentines are sent to clubs full time at a young age. Holland is a tiny country and kids are identified early. However, the favelas in Brazil, the slums of Colombia, the trailer parks of Naccadoches, the dirt patches of Ghana, etc are still churning out self trained kids.

Sure they are. And the manicured fields of PYSA rec are churning out self trained kids too. But the BEST young players are ID'd and formally trained...especially in Brazil. It's business plain and simple. Talent scouts are global.

So who is the one ID'ing and formally training all of the BEST young players... or for our benefit our DD's in NTX?

If you have to ask you can't afford it!

bevowhoopin wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

soccerfans4u wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

coachr wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

coachr wrote:

fourfourtwo wrote:

coachr wrote:Chill out dude. You almost burned me with that hot air.

You read the whole thing? My bad. I'll make my post longer next time.

If it were longer I'd agree with you!

You do agree with me you just don't know it yet. Pele got started in the 1950s. The modern game is different. How old was Messi when he went pro? How old are the kids at Ajax when they first enter their system?

Talent is identified early and snapped up into formal training all over the world.

Argentines are sent to clubs full time at a young age. Holland is a tiny country and kids are identified early. However, the favelas in Brazil, the slums of Colombia, the trailer parks of Naccadoches, the dirt patches of Ghana, etc are still churning out self trained kids.

Sure they are. And the manicured fields of PYSA rec are churning out self trained kids too. But the BEST young players are ID'd and formally trained...especially in Brazil. It's business plain and simple. Talent scouts are global.

So who is the one ID'ing and formally training all of the BEST young players... or for our benefit our DD's in NTX?

If you have to ask you can't afford it!

Sounds like talent doesn't matter then, only the cash... The way you said that it sounds like the clubs are making the decisions not an actual scouting system.

Busby Babes wrote:

DrSoccer wrote:here's an answer to the 'why not' question. When i had this conversation I immediately thought of this thread.

At a recent ecnl event, one ecnl coach told me that next year he had to recruit faster, more athletic girls in order to continue to win. Said he didn't need good soccer players, just needed more speed to keep up, otherwise he had no chance (to win). a. Driving force of youth club soccer is winning, not developing top players. b. Many/most local youth coaches see athleticsm as the only way to accomplish a.

The players he recruits will do well in a track meet, not so good at a national team level. I guess what we should want to hear the coach say is that he has developed his team's skills to the point where they can move the ball so well that he wears out the other team's faster players, and that he's looking for similiar skillful soccer players next year to replace the 2 he's going to lose to the youth nat team camps. If they are fast all the better..

bevowhoopin wrote:

DrSoccer wrote:here's an answer to the 'why not' question. When i had this conversation I immediately thought of this thread.

At a recent ecnl event, one ecnl coach told me that next year he had to recruit faster, more athletic girls in order to continue to win. Said he didn't need good soccer players, just needed more speed to keep up, otherwise he had no chance (to win). a. Driving force of youth club soccer is winning, not developing top players. b. Many/most local youth coaches see athleticsm as the only way to accomplish a.

The players he recruits will do well in a track meet, not so good at a national team level. I guess what we should want to hear the coach say is that he has developed his team's skills to the point where they can move the ball so well that he wears out the other team's faster players, and that he's looking for similiar skillful soccer players next year to replace the 2 he's going to lose to the youth nat team camps. If they are fast all the better..

That is another subject that I won't touch here but those same teams trying to recruit did a fairly good job at developing at a younger age, what happened as the team got older? Did the club decide that it was easier to recruit or was the emphasis changed from developing to recruiting(aka winning quicker)? I also thought that the idea of ECNL was to play less and train more, so why are the kids not developing?

coachr wrote:

bevowhoopin wrote:

DrSoccer wrote:here's an answer to the 'why not' question. When i had this conversation I immediately thought of this thread.

At a recent ecnl event, one ecnl coach told me that next year he had to recruit faster, more athletic girls in order to continue to win. Said he didn't need good soccer players, just needed more speed to keep up, otherwise he had no chance (to win). a. Driving force of youth club soccer is winning, not developing top players. b. Many/most local youth coaches see athleticsm as the only way to accomplish a.

The players he recruits will do well in a track meet, not so good at a national team level. I guess what we should want to hear the coach say is that he has developed his team's skills to the point where they can move the ball so well that he wears out the other team's faster players, and that he's looking for similiar skillful soccer players next year to replace the 2 he's going to lose to the youth nat team camps. If they are fast all the better..

That is another subject that I won't touch here but those same teams trying to recruit did a fairly good job at developing at a younger age, what happened as the team got older? Did the club decide that it was easier to recruit or was the emphasis changed from developing to recruiting(aka winning quicker)? I also thought that the idea of ECNL was to play less and train more, so why are the kids not developing?

Give me Usain Bolt and I guarantee you goals! Serious.

my2cents wrote:

coachr wrote:

bevowhoopin wrote:

DrSoccer wrote:here's an answer to the 'why not' question. When i had this conversation I immediately thought of this thread.

At a recent ecnl event, one ecnl coach told me that next year he had to recruit faster, more athletic girls in order to continue to win. Said he didn't need good soccer players, just needed more speed to keep up, otherwise he had no chance (to win). a. Driving force of youth club soccer is winning, not developing top players. b. Many/most local youth coaches see athleticsm as the only way to accomplish a.

The players he recruits will do well in a track meet, not so good at a national team level. I guess what we should want to hear the coach say is that he has developed his team's skills to the point where they can move the ball so well that he wears out the other team's faster players, and that he's looking for similiar skillful soccer players next year to replace the 2 he's going to lose to the youth nat team camps. If they are fast all the better..

That is another subject that I won't touch here but those same teams trying to recruit did a fairly good job at developing at a younger age, what happened as the team got older? Did the club decide that it was easier to recruit or was the emphasis changed from developing to recruiting(aka winning quicker)? I also thought that the idea of ECNL was to play less and train more, so why are the kids not developing?

Give me Usain Bolt and I guarantee you goals! Serious.

Team A- Usain Bolt. Team B- a smart center back, i.e. one who knows position and angles.
My money is on B every time. Speed works when there is a lack of skill. Once you add skill and knowledge, superior speed can be negated.