Not One Comment on the USA vs Belgium game?!?!?!?

it was a spanish study and the overall average of everyone was 5'11" but the regualar player was 5'9" with some being shorter and some others being taller. Think of rooney, neymar, chicharito being an average size player at 5'9" but add the heights of defenders (and peter crouch) and subtract the Messi's putting the mean at 5'11", So unless we would classify those players small soccer players or average sized players.

Anarchy wrote:- Yes, it was a waste of 30 minutes I spent watching it.

The only sport I prefer to watch women play... well wait I forgot about sand volleyball

Talk about the 'beautiful sport'...

field hockey was hot too

go99 wrote:no they are second tier. They have NO shot at a world cup. Qualifying for it would be a victory for them. We are 3rd tier on our best day. First tier teams are the ones going to compete for the cup not the ungly girl that was just happy to get invited to the dance. Nothing more than the ugly friend of the Netherlands

You have to remember that according to no less of an authority than Top Gear, Belgium is nothing more than a forum created to allow Germany and England to work out their differences.

go99 wrote:

mcik17 wrote:

twotouch wrote:

the7wolf wrote:

3-4-3 wrote:

go99 wrote:retire beasley? Hell retire them all and everyone even partially connected to US soccer. The mear mention of the word USSF should be grounds for banishment from soccer or any sport with round objects. Getting walloped by Belgium? We are talking about Belgium not Germany. They are not a world soccer power, second tier at best. They are famous for waffles and chocolate not soccer.

Beligium is a solid team with their current crop of talent. Go look where their starters play club ball, that should tell you something. They are not second tier, we are.

Internationally, Belgium would be considered 2nd tier, USA (and England for that matter) are closer to the 3rd tier. Grinding out results with athleticism and aggression seems to be a trademark of both teams. I can't honestly watch either team for longer than 20 minutes without questioning why they don't practice some rec passing drills to help a little.

Never go from the FIFA world rankings, those are about as accurate as the human polls on these forums.

I agree that Belgium is a step below Spain, Germany, Argentina and maybe Brazil. When Eden Hazard plays though, they are definitely in the next tier. In other words, they aren't bad.

On the other hand, I've been really disappointed with the lack of skill, anticipation and general soccer IQ of the US players during the Klinsmann era. Hard to believe that with over 300 million people, we can't put ten skillful players with reasonable athleticism on the field. Heavy touches and errant passes are the rule, not the exception. Very disappointing!

e
Don't forget that soccer is 4th or 5th in the pecking order in getting the best athletes behind football,baseball, basketball and sometimes hockey(depending on location of country) at least on the boys side of things. Where as in most of the rest of the world soccer is king and draws the best athletes the country has to offer.

Ugh the same old excuse. Doesn't matter if soccer is 20th in the US. We still put more A$$e$ in soccer shorts than Belgium and netherlands combined. We have more kids playing soccer than the entire population of the Netherlands. Average soccer player is 5'9" basketball DONE! Average soccer player is under 180 lbs. Football DONE! The soccer athlete is out there in the US he just can't play

We r talking about kids wanting to play sports from the start, not adults. Kids don't know how big they will be when they are 7 yrs old, so if they love football or basketball and play those sports then discover when they are 15 they aren't going to be big enough to past highschool in those sports, it will be to late at that point to try and learn the foot skills that soccer requires....so your football DONE, basketball DONE size analogy doesn't make since. If they(Best Atheletes) don't start playing as a kid it is most likely to late to switch sports at 15 when your figure out you won't have the size to play football or basketball. All I'm saying is if all our best Atheletes started and stuck with soccer we would be better....not saying the best....just better!

well have to give you credit that is at least a different argument. so of the about 14 million people under the age of 18 playing soccer in the US they couldn't find 11 players because football and soccer took ALL of the athletes before they were 5. Now this despite that soccer is the most played sport in the us for children. Now I have heard the argument that we lose those athletes as they get older and move on to other sports but this is actually the first time I have heard the argument that they never actually play soccer to begin with.

mcik17 wrote:

go99 wrote:

mcik17 wrote:

twotouch wrote:

the7wolf wrote:

3-4-3 wrote:

Beligium is a solid team with their current crop of talent. Go look where their starters play club ball, that should tell you something. They are not second tier, we are.

Internationally, Belgium would be considered 2nd tier, USA (and England for that matter) are closer to the 3rd tier. Grinding out results with athleticism and aggression seems to be a trademark of both teams. I can't honestly watch either team for longer than 20 minutes without questioning why they don't practice some rec passing drills to help a little.

Never go from the FIFA world rankings, those are about as accurate as the human polls on these forums.

I agree that Belgium is a step below Spain, Germany, Argentina and maybe Brazil. When Eden Hazard plays though, they are definitely in the next tier. In other words, they aren't bad.

On the other hand, I've been really disappointed with the lack of skill, anticipation and general soccer IQ of the US players during the Klinsmann era. Hard to believe that with over 300 million people, we can't put ten skillful players with reasonable athleticism on the field. Heavy touches and errant passes are the rule, not the exception. Very disappointing!

e
Don't forget that soccer is 4th or 5th in the pecking order in getting the best athletes behind football,baseball, basketball and sometimes hockey(depending on location of country) at least on the boys side of things. Where as in most of the rest of the world soccer is king and draws the best athletes the country has to offer.

Ugh the same old excuse. Doesn't matter if soccer is 20th in the US. We still put more A$$e$ in soccer shorts than Belgium and netherlands combined. We have more kids playing soccer than the entire population of the Netherlands. Average soccer player is 5'9" basketball DONE! Average soccer player is under 180 lbs. Football DONE! The soccer athlete is out there in the US he just can't play

We r talking about kids wanting to play sports from the start, not adults. Kids don't know how big they will be when they are 7 yrs old, so if they love football or basketball and play those sports then discover when they are 15 they aren't going to be big enough to past highschool in those sports, it will be to late at that point to try and learn the foot skills that soccer requires....so your football DONE, basketball DONE size analogy doesn't make since. If they(Best Atheletes) don't start playing as a kid it is most likely to late to switch sports at 15 when your figure out you won't have the size to play football or basketball. All I'm saying is if all our best Atheletes started and stuck with soccer we would be better....not saying the best....just better!

Funny thing is US came up with a plan to compete on the world stage starting in 1994 with the world cup doing just as you suggest. It has failed miserably. The plan was simple the US has some of the best athletes in the world and we just have to get those athlete in soccer and keep them there. What resulted is one of the most athletic teams in world that gets blown out by a bunch of waffle pushers. It hasn't worked and won't work. It's not the numbers and it's not the athletes. It's the fact that they can't play and you can't teach them to play at the sr level

I am not sure that is the argument that I would make. I think that there are a ton of kids who play poor rec soccer here...and that SAME ton play football, basketball etc. My thought is that their attention is divided over all the sports. I think that the fact that other countries "specialize" because all they have is a soccer ball or soccer heroes makes more sense. ALMOST every soccer player (girl or boy) I know is also good at other sports...Soccer is only ONE piece of the pie. Add in music, video games, etc. and you get a kid whose focus isn't solely soccer.

To me THAT is where we lose talent over time. As much as we hate academy soccer for the drama, if a SUPER ATHLETIC kid focuses solely on soccer for a decade and doesn't play other sports or lose interest, that ONE is a likely candidate...If he wasn't a gifted WORLD CLASS athlete that chose soccer over all the other diversions, then it won't matter. We will get athletic soccer players-but NOT world class soccer players.

A kid like Messi is a once in a generation talent with the love of the game to match. BUT there is only ONE Messi. There are millions of kids with Messi's love, but not his vision, speed, etc. Welcome to being everyone else in the world.

One thing is obvious or should be, the overly-athletic approach isn't working. Spain, Germany, etc. do not have superior athletes than the U.S. so obviously the argument of "losing the best athletes to other sports" isn't a relevant point. I certainly don't believe the "smarter" athletes are lost to these other sports either.

The fact that our whole system in the U.S. revolves around winning at the U5 age group upwards otherwise 75% of parents will look for a team that does win, promotes the athletic approach because we all know that for the most part, young teams with the fastest kids tend to win more. By the time smart play alleviates/counters this to a degree, a lot of development time has been lost with the short-short-long passing tactic to the horses up front. Ask the average soccer parent what they think their own kid should work on and the two most common answers are shooting (regardless of position on the field) and leg strength. Rarely do they reply; passing, dribbling, first-touch. They see the key to player development as being defined as to whether their child can increase their individual scoring chances or kick the ball harder. There is a misconception about what development is and as the U.S. is a consumer-based society within all levels of sport, a coach/team/club championing development can rarely expect to attract kids compared to the cheap, easy, fast winning tactic of "feed the horses". You can develop and win but I feel most coaches (because of what pleases their market) would rather skip to the winning part with the athletic approach relying on the ignorance that their consumers will see this as development. The consumers for whatever reason (a nation of Monday morning quarterbacks) do not trust the suppliers with enough credibility to take the lead and if the soccer community as a whole took a collective leap to early development over early winning, some charlatans would appear and for a fast buck still take the athletic, easy win approach and take most of the customers back.

English soccer has stagnated for nigh on 30+ years due to a non-evolution of tactics and the quashing of creativity at the U14 level upwards. Messi would not have been the player he is growing up in England and in the U.S., he'd have been passed over because of his size continually. In both England and the U.S., a player like Ronaldo would have been chopped down and hacked each time he produced some flair to the point his knees wouldn't work by age 16-18. Imagine the cries of "take him down" from NTX soccer parents each time he got the ball. Look at the MLS. More fouls called than any league I've ever seen and that includes ones renowned for flopping/diving. Show much skill in the MLS and you get chopped down about 20 times a game so you just learn to hoof the ball before somebody comes in cleats up over the ball.

Bottom line. Athleticism wins races. It doesn't win chess games. Until we start seeing soccer as a game of skill and creativity rather than who can win the 40 yard dash, nothing will change.

the7wolf wrote:One thing is obvious or should be, the overly-athletic approach isn't working. Spain, Germany, etc. do not have superior athletes than the U.S. so obviously the argument of "losing the best athletes to other sports" isn't a relevant point. I certainly don't believe the "smarter" athletes are lost to these other sports either.

The fact that our whole system in the U.S. revolves around winning at the U5 age group upwards otherwise 75% of parents will look for a team that does win, promotes the athletic approach because we all know that for the most part, young teams with the fastest kids tend to win more. By the time smart play alleviates/counters this to a degree, a lot of development time has been lost with the short-short-long passing tactic to the horses up front. Ask the average soccer parent what they think their own kid should work on and the two most common answers are shooting (regardless of position on the field) and leg strength. Rarely do they reply; passing, dribbling, first-touch. They see the key to player development as being defined as to whether their child can increase their individual scoring chances or kick the ball harder. There is a misconception about what development is and as the U.S. is a consumer-based society within all levels of sport, a coach/team/club championing development can rarely expect to attract kids compared to the cheap, easy, fast winning tactic of "feed the horses". You can develop and win but I feel most coaches (because of what pleases their market) would rather skip to the winning part with the athletic approach relying on the ignorance that their consumers will see this as development. The consumers for whatever reason (a nation of Monday morning quarterbacks) do not trust the suppliers with enough credibility to take the lead and if the soccer community as a whole took a collective leap to early development over early winning, some charlatans would appear and for a fast buck still take the athletic, easy win approach and take most of the customers back.

English soccer has stagnated for nigh on 30+ years due to a non-evolution of tactics and the quashing of creativity at the U14 level upwards. Messi would not have been the player he is growing up in England and in the U.S., he'd have been passed over because of his size continually. In both England and the U.S., a player like Ronaldo would have been chopped down and hacked each time he produced some flair to the point his knees wouldn't work by age 16-18. Imagine the cries of "take him down" from NTX soccer parents each time he got the ball. Look at the MLS. More fouls called than any league I've ever seen and that includes ones renowned for flopping/diving. Show much skill in the MLS and you get chopped down about 20 times a game so you just learn to hoof the ball before somebody comes in cleats up over the ball.

Bottom line. Athleticism wins races. It doesn't win chess games. Until we start seeing soccer as a game of skill and creativity rather than who can win the 40 yard dash, nothing will change.

Good post thanks..

the7wolf wrote:One thing is obvious or should be, the overly-athletic approach isn't working. Spain, Germany, etc. do not have superior athletes than the U.S. so obviously the argument of "losing the best athletes to other sports" isn't a relevant point. I certainly don't believe the "smarter" athletes are lost to these other sports either.

The fact that our whole system in the U.S. revolves around winning at the U5 age group upwards otherwise 75% of parents will look for a team that does win, promotes the athletic approach because we all know that for the most part, young teams with the fastest kids tend to win more. By the time smart play alleviates/counters this to a degree, a lot of development time has been lost with the short-short-long passing tactic to the horses up front. Ask the average soccer parent what they think their own kid should work on and the two most common answers are shooting (regardless of position on the field) and leg strength. Rarely do they reply; passing, dribbling, first-touch. They see the key to player development as being defined as to whether their child can increase their individual scoring chances or kick the ball harder. There is a misconception about what development is and as the U.S. is a consumer-based society within all levels of sport, a coach/team/club championing development can rarely expect to attract kids compared to the cheap, easy, fast winning tactic of "feed the horses". You can develop and win but I feel most coaches (because of what pleases their market) would rather skip to the winning part with the athletic approach relying on the ignorance that their consumers will see this as development. The consumers for whatever reason (a nation of Monday morning quarterbacks) do not trust the suppliers with enough credibility to take the lead and if the soccer community as a whole took a collective leap to early development over early winning, some charlatans would appear and for a fast buck still take the athletic, easy win approach and take most of the customers back.

English soccer has stagnated for nigh on 30+ years due to a non-evolution of tactics and the quashing of creativity at the U14 level upwards. Messi would not have been the player he is growing up in England and in the U.S., he'd have been passed over because of his size continually. In both England and the U.S., a player like Ronaldo would have been chopped down and hacked each time he produced some flair to the point his knees wouldn't work by age 16-18. Imagine the cries of "take him down" from NTX soccer parents each time he got the ball. Look at the MLS. More fouls called than any league I've ever seen and that includes ones renowned for flopping/diving. Show much skill in the MLS and you get chopped down about 20 times a game so you just learn to hoof the ball before somebody comes in cleats up over the ball.

Bottom line. Athleticism wins races. It doesn't win chess games. Until we start seeing soccer as a game of skill and creativity rather than who can win the 40 yard dash, nothing will change.

Yes! Thank you.

the7wolf wrote:One thing is obvious or should be, the overly-athletic approach isn't working. Spain, Germany, etc. do not have superior athletes than the U.S. so obviously the argument of "losing the best athletes to other sports" isn't a relevant point. I certainly don't believe the "smarter" athletes are lost to these other sports either.

The fact that our whole system in the U.S. revolves around winning at the U5 age group upwards otherwise 75% of parents will look for a team that does win, promotes the athletic approach because we all know that for the most part, young teams with the fastest kids tend to win more. By the time smart play alleviates/counters this to a degree, a lot of development time has been lost with the short-short-long passing tactic to the horses up front. Ask the average soccer parent what they think their own kid should work on and the two most common answers are shooting (regardless of position on the field) and leg strength. Rarely do they reply; passing, dribbling, first-touch. They see the key to player development as being defined as to whether their child can increase their individual scoring chances or kick the ball harder. There is a misconception about what development is and as the U.S. is a consumer-based society within all levels of sport, a coach/team/club championing development can rarely expect to attract kids compared to the cheap, easy, fast winning tactic of "feed the horses". You can develop and win but I feel most coaches (because of what pleases their market) would rather skip to the winning part with the athletic approach relying on the ignorance that their consumers will see this as development. The consumers for whatever reason (a nation of Monday morning quarterbacks) do not trust the suppliers with enough credibility to take the lead and if the soccer community as a whole took a collective leap to early development over early winning, some charlatans would appear and for a fast buck still take the athletic, easy win approach and take most of the customers back.

English soccer has stagnated for nigh on 30+ years due to a non-evolution of tactics and the quashing of creativity at the U14 level upwards. Messi would not have been the player he is growing up in England and in the U.S., he'd have been passed over because of his size continually. In both England and the U.S., a player like Ronaldo would have been chopped down and hacked each time he produced some flair to the point his knees wouldn't work by age 16-18. Imagine the cries of "take him down" from NTX soccer parents each time he got the ball. Look at the MLS. More fouls called than any league I've ever seen and that includes ones renowned for flopping/diving. Show much skill in the MLS and you get chopped down about 20 times a game so you just learn to hoof the ball before somebody comes in cleats up over the ball.

Bottom line. Athleticism wins races. It doesn't win chess games. Until we start seeing soccer as a game of skill and creativity rather than who can win the 40 yard dash, nothing will change.

This is a bunch of crap in my opinion. For one, you're a paid coach for a youth mega club, and the main culprits responsible for the u.s. style of play the last 40+ years are that exact demographic of coaches.

For two you're lumping in Spain with Germany talking about athleticism when the two are quite different in the profile of their athletes. Unlike Ramos and the USSF copy cats, Germany has not tried to copy tiki taka with a bunch of miniature footballers, and their recent success indicates they didn't need to. Germany absolutely has better athletes than the U.S. soccer! Athletic players like Chandler play for the U.S. because they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in a flower mound summer of getting minutes on a German world cup squad.

And here we go with this cliche argument that Messi would've been "passed over" in the u.s. because of his size. It's ridiculous. He was a phenom goal scorer at a early age. His agility and acceleration have always been off the charts compared to his peers. He showed up in Barcelona academy and scored goals against his peers from day one. Cryuff was blown away from day one. So u.s. coaches care mostly about wins, but they would've turned away a phenom goal scorer at 11 because of his size? Hardly.

The main problem with your whole argument, as well as the larger group you represent in the u.s. soccer establishment, is you insist on setting up this false dichotomy....i.e. a player has to be classified as smart OR athletic. Oblivious to the fact most world class players ARE BOTH, you guys resort to all sorts of mental gymnastics to make the case world class players aren't really that athletic. Messi? Oh he's all skill and smarts. He's so very small, and not that athletic. Don't believe you're lieing eyes when you see his explosive bursts scampering away from all comers over 5 to 15 yards. Ronaldo runs a 4.4? Oh that doesn't make him great. Look - see, Walcott is just as fast and he sucks.

This group in the soccer intelligentsia is always lamenting about how dumb, athletic u.s. players could be replaced by some army of technically brilliant players getting passed over for one reason or another. Problem is they never get down to naming names on who these supposedly brilliant players are. They're so great they could work wonders on the national team, though no world class clubs are willing to pay them a hill of beans?

More importantly, this group can never point to any world class players they developed themselves.

Yes - the world is better because they have better coaching and more of it. But equally yes - the world is better because they develop kids with more athletic ability than the rich kids spit out by u.s. soccer. It won't change until soccer in the states at the top level isn't geared towards kids getting into college, but towards developing athletically gifted players with the psychological and technical ability to play top level professional soccer (i.e. europe)...who then feed the national team.

Training up more kids from the burbs to put down their ipad so they can run coerver drills isn't the answer. Please cease and desist with this claim u.s. soccer has been putting out great athletes on the same level as other major u.s. sports, and somehow they're athletic beasts too dumb to play. They're mediocre athletes at best.

Who is the best u.s. athlete? Altidore? He's a D3 running back type for a small private school on an academic scholarship. Look at his balance and (lack of) ability to change direction. You'd have to stretch to name any player on any current or former u.s. national team athletically gifted enough to go pro in any of the big 3 sports.

C. Ronaldo looks darn fast on the soccer field. Runs away from everyone. He is 6'1 and listed 100M time is 10.6. Urban legend says his 40 is in the 4.4 range.

I'd need more than two hands to count the dudes I personally knew were faster than that...in high school. None of them played soccer. It's just nonsense to think u.s. soccer is putting anywhere close to our top athletes on the soccer field. And no, I'm not saying if every pro caliber NFL skill player or NBA point guard came through u.s. soccer we'd be brazil. Without the coaching and culture, we'd still be outside the top tier as a soccer nation.

But the monstrous pool of hispanic talent that actually is athletic and skilled is mostly overlooked. Why? Coaches can't snag 15 to 80K/yr off the parents by coaching that demographic. Much easier to ride the wealthy kids to the ATM while b*tching and moaning about how too many athletes are beating up on your teams. Forgive me if I don't believe the head chefs have much room to sit around complaining about the menu.

3-4-3 wrote:

the7wolf wrote:One thing is obvious or should be, the overly-athletic approach isn't working. Spain, Germany, etc. do not have superior athletes than the U.S. so obviously the argument of "losing the best athletes to other sports" isn't a relevant point. I certainly don't believe the "smarter" athletes are lost to these other sports either.

The fact that our whole system in the U.S. revolves around winning at the U5 age group upwards otherwise 75% of parents will look for a team that does win, promotes the athletic approach because we all know that for the most part, young teams with the fastest kids tend to win more. By the time smart play alleviates/counters this to a degree, a lot of development time has been lost with the short-short-long passing tactic to the horses up front. Ask the average soccer parent what they think their own kid should work on and the two most common answers are shooting (regardless of position on the field) and leg strength. Rarely do they reply; passing, dribbling, first-touch. They see the key to player development as being defined as to whether their child can increase their individual scoring chances or kick the ball harder. There is a misconception about what development is and as the U.S. is a consumer-based society within all levels of sport, a coach/team/club championing development can rarely expect to attract kids compared to the cheap, easy, fast winning tactic of "feed the horses". You can develop and win but I feel most coaches (because of what pleases their market) would rather skip to the winning part with the athletic approach relying on the ignorance that their consumers will see this as development. The consumers for whatever reason (a nation of Monday morning quarterbacks) do not trust the suppliers with enough credibility to take the lead and if the soccer community as a whole took a collective leap to early development over early winning, some charlatans would appear and for a fast buck still take the athletic, easy win approach and take most of the customers back.

English soccer has stagnated for nigh on 30+ years due to a non-evolution of tactics and the quashing of creativity at the U14 level upwards. Messi would not have been the player he is growing up in England and in the U.S., he'd have been passed over because of his size continually. In both England and the U.S., a player like Ronaldo would have been chopped down and hacked each time he produced some flair to the point his knees wouldn't work by age 16-18. Imagine the cries of "take him down" from NTX soccer parents each time he got the ball. Look at the MLS. More fouls called than any league I've ever seen and that includes ones renowned for flopping/diving. Show much skill in the MLS and you get chopped down about 20 times a game so you just learn to hoof the ball before somebody comes in cleats up over the ball.

Bottom line. Athleticism wins races. It doesn't win chess games. Until we start seeing soccer as a game of skill and creativity rather than who can win the 40 yard dash, nothing will change.

This is a bunch of crap in my opinion. For one, you're a paid coach for a youth mega club, and the main culprits responsible for the u.s. style of play the last 40+ years are that exact demographic of coaches.

For two you're lumping in Spain with Germany talking about athleticism when the two are quite different in the profile of their athletes. Unlike Ramos and the USSF copy cats, Germany has not tried to copy tiki taka with a bunch of miniature footballers, and their recent success indicates they didn't need to. Germany absolutely has better athletes than the U.S. soccer! Athletic players like Chandler play for the U.S. because they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in a flower mound summer of getting minutes on a German world cup squad.

And here we go with this cliche argument that Messi would've been "passed over" in the u.s. because of his size. It's ridiculous. He was a phenom goal scorer at a early age. His agility and acceleration have always been off the charts compared to his peers. He showed up in Barcelona academy and scored goals against his peers from day one. Cryuff was blown away from day one. So u.s. coaches care mostly about wins, but they would've turned away a phenom goal scorer at 11 because of his size? Hardly.

The main problem with your whole argument, as well as the larger group you represent in the u.s. soccer establishment, is you insist on setting up this false dichotomy....i.e. a player has to be classified as smart OR athletic. Oblivious to the fact most world class players ARE BOTH, you guys resort to all sorts of mental gymnastics to make the case world class players aren't really that athletic. Messi? Oh he's all skill and smarts. He's so very small, and not that athletic. Don't believe you're lieing eyes when you see his explosive bursts scampering away from all comers over 5 to 15 yards. Ronaldo runs a 4.4? Oh that doesn't make him great. Look - see, Walcott is just as fast and he sucks.

This group in the soccer intelligentsia is always lamenting about how dumb, athletic u.s. players could be replaced by some army of technically brilliant players getting passed over for one reason or another. Problem is they never get down to naming names on who these supposedly brilliant players are. They're so great they could work wonders on the national team, though no world class clubs are willing to pay them a hill of beans?

More importantly, this group can never point to any world class players they developed themselves.

Yes - the world is better because they have better coaching and more of it. But equally yes - the world is better because they develop kids with more athletic ability than the rich kids spit out by u.s. soccer. It won't change until soccer in the states at the top level isn't geared towards kids getting into college, but towards developing athletically gifted players with the psychological and technical ability to play top level professional soccer (i.e. europe)...who then feed the national team.

Training up more kids from the burbs to put down their ipad so they can run coerver drills isn't the answer. Please cease and desist with this claim u.s. soccer has been putting out great athletes on the same level as other major u.s. sports, and somehow they're athletic beasts too dumb to play. They're mediocre athletes at best.

Who is the best u.s. athlete? Altidore? He's a D3 running back type for a small private school on an academic scholarship. Look at his balance and (lack of) ability to change direction. You'd have to stretch to name any player on any current or former u.s. national team athletically gifted enough to go pro in any of the big 3 sports.

C. Ronaldo looks darn fast on the soccer field. Runs away from everyone. He is 6'1 and listed 100M time is 10.6. Urban legend says his 40 is in the 4.4 range.

I'd need more than two hands to count the dudes I personally knew were faster than that...in high school. None of them played soccer. It's just nonsense to think u.s. soccer is putting anywhere close to our top athletes on the soccer field. And no, I'm not saying if every pro caliber NFL skill player or NBA point guard came through u.s. soccer we'd be brazil. Without the coaching and culture, we'd still be outside the top tier as a soccer nation.

But the monstrous pool of hispanic talent that actually is athletic and skilled is mostly overlooked. Why? Coaches can't snag 15 to 80K/yr off the parents by coaching that demographic. Much easier to ride the wealthy kids to the ATM while b*tching and moaning about how too many athletes are beating up on your teams. Forgive me if I don't believe the head chefs have much room to sit around complaining about the menu.

You say my opinion is a bunch of crap yet from a previous post of yours, you agree with at least half of it.


"You can absolutely win a boat load of games w/o teaching good soccer, and you can teach good soccer w/o winning all your games. I'd say if you teach a style that leads to long-term development you will in fact lose games you might not otherwise lose because you ask/require your players to master difficult concepts that may cost them a game or two but pay off down the road.

On the other hand all you need is three fast and physical defenders and two fast and physical forwards and you can win a slew of games for a long time and none of your other players need to walk and chew gum."


Nobody said Messi or Ronaldo were not athletic so you've created a strawman argument there. I said we rely on over-athleticism, assuming athleticism is the be-all and end-all of what the U.S. needs to compete. I also never said you have to be smart OR athletic so again, not sure who you're arguing that point with.

Hispanic kids in the U.S. play soccer with their friends at an early age and are more likely to be born into families where mom and dad, brothers and sisters can actually meaningfully kick a ball around with them.

Finally, you say without the right coaching and culture, even if the U.S. had the top athletes playing soccer, it still wouldn't solve the issue which again was a large point of my post.

So make your mind up, you've told me my opinion is a bunch of crap but then agreed with most of it. Argued against something I never said and then decided the problem is the same one I identified.

the7wolf wrote:

3-4-3 wrote:

the7wolf wrote:One thing is obvious or should be, the overly-athletic approach isn't working. Spain, Germany, etc. do not have superior athletes than the U.S. so obviously the argument of "losing the best athletes to other sports" isn't a relevant point. I certainly don't believe the "smarter" athletes are lost to these other sports either.

The fact that our whole system in the U.S. revolves around winning at the U5 age group upwards otherwise 75% of parents will look for a team that does win, promotes the athletic approach because we all know that for the most part, young teams with the fastest kids tend to win more. By the time smart play alleviates/counters this to a degree, a lot of development time has been lost with the short-short-long passing tactic to the horses up front. Ask the average soccer parent what they think their own kid should work on and the two most common answers are shooting (regardless of position on the field) and leg strength. Rarely do they reply; passing, dribbling, first-touch. They see the key to player development as being defined as to whether their child can increase their individual scoring chances or kick the ball harder. There is a misconception about what development is and as the U.S. is a consumer-based society within all levels of sport, a coach/team/club championing development can rarely expect to attract kids compared to the cheap, easy, fast winning tactic of "feed the horses". You can develop and win but I feel most coaches (because of what pleases their market) would rather skip to the winning part with the athletic approach relying on the ignorance that their consumers will see this as development. The consumers for whatever reason (a nation of Monday morning quarterbacks) do not trust the suppliers with enough credibility to take the lead and if the soccer community as a whole took a collective leap to early development over early winning, some charlatans would appear and for a fast buck still take the athletic, easy win approach and take most of the customers back.

English soccer has stagnated for nigh on 30+ years due to a non-evolution of tactics and the quashing of creativity at the U14 level upwards. Messi would not have been the player he is growing up in England and in the U.S., he'd have been passed over because of his size continually. In both England and the U.S., a player like Ronaldo would have been chopped down and hacked each time he produced some flair to the point his knees wouldn't work by age 16-18. Imagine the cries of "take him down" from NTX soccer parents each time he got the ball. Look at the MLS. More fouls called than any league I've ever seen and that includes ones renowned for flopping/diving. Show much skill in the MLS and you get chopped down about 20 times a game so you just learn to hoof the ball before somebody comes in cleats up over the ball.

Bottom line. Athleticism wins races. It doesn't win chess games. Until we start seeing soccer as a game of skill and creativity rather than who can win the 40 yard dash, nothing will change.

This is a bunch of crap in my opinion. For one, you're a paid coach for a youth mega club, and the main culprits responsible for the u.s. style of play the last 40+ years are that exact demographic of coaches.

For two you're lumping in Spain with Germany talking about athleticism when the two are quite different in the profile of their athletes. Unlike Ramos and the USSF copy cats, Germany has not tried to copy tiki taka with a bunch of miniature footballers, and their recent success indicates they didn't need to. Germany absolutely has better athletes than the U.S. soccer! Athletic players like Chandler play for the U.S. because they wouldn't have a snowball's chance in a flower mound summer of getting minutes on a German world cup squad.

And here we go with this cliche argument that Messi would've been "passed over" in the u.s. because of his size. It's ridiculous. He was a phenom goal scorer at a early age. His agility and acceleration have always been off the charts compared to his peers. He showed up in Barcelona academy and scored goals against his peers from day one. Cryuff was blown away from day one. So u.s. coaches care mostly about wins, but they would've turned away a phenom goal scorer at 11 because of his size? Hardly.

The main problem with your whole argument, as well as the larger group you represent in the u.s. soccer establishment, is you insist on setting up this false dichotomy....i.e. a player has to be classified as smart OR athletic. Oblivious to the fact most world class players ARE BOTH, you guys resort to all sorts of mental gymnastics to make the case world class players aren't really that athletic. Messi? Oh he's all skill and smarts. He's so very small, and not that athletic. Don't believe you're lieing eyes when you see his explosive bursts scampering away from all comers over 5 to 15 yards. Ronaldo runs a 4.4? Oh that doesn't make him great. Look - see, Walcott is just as fast and he sucks.

This group in the soccer intelligentsia is always lamenting about how dumb, athletic u.s. players could be replaced by some army of technically brilliant players getting passed over for one reason or another. Problem is they never get down to naming names on who these supposedly brilliant players are. They're so great they could work wonders on the national team, though no world class clubs are willing to pay them a hill of beans?

More importantly, this group can never point to any world class players they developed themselves.

Yes - the world is better because they have better coaching and more of it. But equally yes - the world is better because they develop kids with more athletic ability than the rich kids spit out by u.s. soccer. It won't change until soccer in the states at the top level isn't geared towards kids getting into college, but towards developing athletically gifted players with the psychological and technical ability to play top level professional soccer (i.e. europe)...who then feed the national team.

Training up more kids from the burbs to put down their ipad so they can run coerver drills isn't the answer. Please cease and desist with this claim u.s. soccer has been putting out great athletes on the same level as other major u.s. sports, and somehow they're athletic beasts too dumb to play. They're mediocre athletes at best.

Who is the best u.s. athlete? Altidore? He's a D3 running back type for a small private school on an academic scholarship. Look at his balance and (lack of) ability to change direction. You'd have to stretch to name any player on any current or former u.s. national team athletically gifted enough to go pro in any of the big 3 sports.

C. Ronaldo looks darn fast on the soccer field. Runs away from everyone. He is 6'1 and listed 100M time is 10.6. Urban legend says his 40 is in the 4.4 range.

I'd need more than two hands to count the dudes I personally knew were faster than that...in high school. None of them played soccer. It's just nonsense to think u.s. soccer is putting anywhere close to our top athletes on the soccer field. And no, I'm not saying if every pro caliber NFL skill player or NBA point guard came through u.s. soccer we'd be brazil. Without the coaching and culture, we'd still be outside the top tier as a soccer nation.

But the monstrous pool of hispanic talent that actually is athletic and skilled is mostly overlooked. Why? Coaches can't snag 15 to 80K/yr off the parents by coaching that demographic. Much easier to ride the wealthy kids to the ATM while b*tching and moaning about how too many athletes are beating up on your teams. Forgive me if I don't believe the head chefs have much room to sit around complaining about the menu.

You say my opinion is a bunch of crap yet from a previous post of yours, you agree with at least half of it.


"You can absolutely win a boat load of games w/o teaching good soccer, and you can teach good soccer w/o winning all your games. I'd say if you teach a style that leads to long-term development you will in fact lose games you might not otherwise lose because you ask/require your players to master difficult concepts that may cost them a game or two but pay off down the road.

On the other hand all you need is three fast and physical defenders and two fast and physical forwards and you can win a slew of games for a long time and none of your other players need to walk and chew gum."


Nobody said Messi or Ronaldo were not athletic so you've created a strawman argument there. I said we rely on over-athleticism, assuming athleticism is the be-all and end-all of what the U.S. needs to compete.

Hispanic kids in the U.S. play soccer with their friends at an early age and are more likely to be born into families where mom and dad, brothers and sisters can actually meaningfully kick a ball around with them.

Finally, you say without the right coaching and culture, even if the U.S. had the top athletes playing soccer, it still wouldn't solve the issue which again was a large point of my post.

So make your mind up, you've told me my opinion is a bunch of crap but then agreed with most of it. Argued against something I never said and then decided the problem is the same one I identified.

Are you coaching these hispanic kids? You acknowledge they have the culture. Do you know of any army of club coaches or scouts lining up for the kids who love the game the most?

If we're going to talk about what's wrong with u.s. soccer, might as well start at the root. If youth basketball becomes completely adult incentivized with talented kids needing to pay to play to get top competition, we'll see the decline of u.s. players vs. the rest of the world. This trend has already started.

My issue was this oft-repeated argument that we're putting out great soccer athletes at the national level, and these great athletes are somehow the main issue with our national team. If only we'd chose the brilliant soccer players who can play chess instead of the dumb athletes playing checkers.

It's an argument reflecting a bias in u.s. soccer coaching, and a reason why extremely athletic players are pigeon-holed at an early age, essentially pimped for their speed, and aren't developed into technical players. They must be too dumb to really learn the game anyway, look how fast they are. If they truly are stud athletes, they choose other options when they reach the age where their lack of skill prevents them from physically dominating in soccer.

This is a u.s. problem. Other nations somehow manage to produce athletically gifted players who've mastered the game technically and tactically. I think it's a crap argument because there are few, if any, world class athletes that end up coming out of u.s. soccer.

We put out mediocre athletes after having given them mediocre coaching, so they play mediocre soccer compared to the rest of the world.

Four simple words from every soccer announcer over the past few years sums up the U.S. athletic approach:

"Eddie Johnson offside...again."

My BB summed it up the best with Messi. After a couple of minutes watching a video of him as a kid he said "that would not have worked here because the defender wouldn't have gone for the ball he would have just smashed him." He was right he dribbled with tons of ball fakes and feints not one kid just dropped a shoulder and floored him (it's a foul) but they would here and tiny messi would have been unable to keep the ball and been overlooked. But thats a whole different issue. Basically 3-4-3 and wolf are saying the same thing.

but first w have to accept that there is no ultimate athlete for all sports. The things that may suit a football player don't always suit a soccer player. A 100m sprinter doesn't need the same traits as a 100m swimmer. If you saw the video with c ronaldo and the sprinter, their way of running was completely different because they are doing different things. So first we need to chose better at a younger age. But instead of choosing the kid with the traits we chose the kid with the money or the size and speed to make an impact now. Then we have to spend time teaching them a way to play soccer. The US need something to call it's style of play to teach and push. Finally we have to give up on the football mentality. Soccer cannot be taught or developed like football because it is not. And say good bye to the idea that if only lebron played soccer.

The US has a large enough pool of players, but as many have said, we don't teach the players the proper way to play.

We focus on the big, fast kids at the young ages and allow then get by without making themselves better at the skils and technical savy they will need. We allow the fast kids to score 4 goals a game and ride him to tournament wins without making him learn how to really play the game. The big, fast, strong, kids are the ones we should focus on because they have the natural, minimal traits it will take to be a great player. At the top level it takes a minimal amount of speed, quickness and agility to even step on the field. IF a player does not have that, he will never be great. We should take the exceptional (soccer) athletes and at a young age, make them do more than just dribble passed people. We should group them all together and make them play the proper way and develop their skills, touch, and vision. So far, no one does that.

The problem has very little to do with the culture the kids come from or the fact that soccer is a pay to play sport. If you can play, there will always be a team that will let you play for free. You can get around the pay to play, if you have the natural gifts.

Also, the culture of the kids matters very little. When Klinsman came in, he said he wanted to focus on the hispanic players, but very few have stepped up to take the chances. Torres could not play at midfield, Hercules Gomez is a non-factor and the player that he tried to play at left back a few times only got a few games. All that to say is it doesn't matter if the player is hispanic, african amerincan, caucasion, asian etc, if they have the natural traits and have been trained to play, they can be world class. Our problem is we don't train them properly at the young age and then it is too late by the time they are 18.

This country has a sports infrastructure unlike the rest of the world.

In the rest of the world, the major football clubs have youth programs to recruit, select and train the best kids from around the country (and the world). Those clubs aren't nearly as worried about winning youth league games as they are in developing players for the first team. In many cases, the youth teams play the same style and formation as the first team. Players enrich the club by making the first team or by being sold to other clubs. If not, they find their level and eventually leave. BTW, academic education has nothing to do with this process.

In the US, an intermediate objective in the process is to get a college scholarship. Players showcase for college coaches and are matched with programs that need their skillset. College coaches have an incentive to win games, conference and national championships, so they recruit kids who will help them do so. Coaches also organize and play in a way that allows them to win with teams that turn over more than 100% every four years. Developing players for professional and international success has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure how much an academic education has to do with it, either.

Well, then, why -- when the US men's team is struggling and 3rd tier -- is the US women's team world class? What's happening differently for the boys vs the girls?

$$$$
There's more of it invested into the USWNT than most other countries.Facilities, training, fitness,coaching, etc. See Brazil.

007shaken wrote:Hard to believe in this great big country with millions of kids playing soccer that those are the best defenders we can find.

And you can blame the 'club soccer' pay to play system for that.....ALL the clubs care about is transferring your $$$ to their pockets...too many 'tournaments' (at a team cost of $400-600 per tournament...all to 'win a $3.00 trophy)...the club coaching is mostly crap, mostly abusive and definitely negative, the parents are out of control, the fields are poor, the kids aren't enjoying the game.....there is a cost free alternative coming soon....great fields, central location, NO charge...ZERO.....watch this space...run by people who are more qualified than ANY of the coaches in N.Texas.

tornado11 wrote:

007shaken wrote:Hard to believe in this great big country with millions of kids playing soccer that those are the best defenders we can find.

And you can blame the 'club soccer' pay to play system for that.....ALL the clubs care about is transferring your $$$ to their pockets...too many 'tournaments' (at a team cost of $400-600 per tournament...all to 'win a $3.00 trophy)...the club coaching is mostly crap, mostly abusive and definitely negative, the parents are out of control, the fields are poor, the kids aren't enjoying the game.....there is a cost free alternative coming soon....great fields, central location, NO charge...ZERO.....watch this space...run by people who are more qualified than ANY of the coaches in N.Texas.

tornado11 - Agree and Agree! Looking forward to your alternative.

Thanks.

tornado11 wrote:

007shaken wrote:Hard to believe in this great big country with millions of kids playing soccer that those are the best defenders we can find.

And you can blame the 'club soccer' pay to play system for that.....ALL the clubs care about is transferring your $$$ to their pockets...too many 'tournaments' (at a team cost of $400-600 per tournament...all to 'win a $3.00 trophy)...the club coaching is mostly crap, mostly abusive and definitely negative, the parents are out of control, the fields are poor, the kids aren't enjoying the game.....there is a cost free alternative coming soon....great fields, central location, NO charge...ZERO.....watch this space...run by people who are more qualified than ANY of the coaches in N.Texas.

Some of the coaches in NTX have UEFA A or B licenses and plenty have USSF A or B. There are also plenty of ex-pros coaching so is there an Intergalactic License we haven't heard of and some players coming from the Galactic Empire All-Star XI to the Metroplex? Will also be interested to see these free fields, free uniforms, free tournament entry, free league entry, etc.

the7wolf wrote:

tornado11 wrote:

007shaken wrote:Hard to believe in this great big country with millions of kids playing soccer that those are the best defenders we can find.

And you can blame the 'club soccer' pay to play system for that.....ALL the clubs care about is transferring your $$$ to their pockets...too many 'tournaments' (at a team cost of $400-600 per tournament...all to 'win a $3.00 trophy)...the club coaching is mostly crap, mostly abusive and definitely negative, the parents are out of control, the fields are poor, the kids aren't enjoying the game.....there is a cost free alternative coming soon....great fields, central location, NO charge...ZERO.....watch this space...run by people who are more qualified than ANY of the coaches in N.Texas.

Some of the coaches in NTX have UEFA A or B licenses and plenty have USSF A or B. There are also plenty of ex-pros coaching so is there an Intergalactic License we haven't heard of and some players coming from the Galactic Empire All-Star XI to the Metroplex? Will also be interested to see these free fields, free uniforms, free tournament entry, free league entry, etc.

Sorry Wolf, but a license means exactly @#@$$ if the person holding it cant connect with the students/players, doesnt care about them, or what they learn. What it proves is that person sat thru the courses and got out on a pitch usually with a bunch of other coaches and ran a session to pass the test. That an investment in time to increase their earning potential for 98% of them. Nothing more.

the7wolf wrote:

tornado11 wrote:

007shaken wrote:Hard to believe in this great big country with millions of kids playing soccer that those are the best defenders we can find.

And you can blame the 'club soccer' pay to play system for that.....ALL the clubs care about is transferring your $$$ to their pockets...too many 'tournaments' (at a team cost of $400-600 per tournament...all to 'win a $3.00 trophy)...the club coaching is mostly crap, mostly abusive and definitely negative, the parents are out of control, the fields are poor, the kids aren't enjoying the game.....there is a cost free alternative coming soon....great fields, central location, NO charge...ZERO.....watch this space...run by people who are more qualified than ANY of the coaches in N.Texas.

Some of the coaches in NTX have UEFA A or B licenses and plenty have USSF A or B. There are also plenty of ex-pros coaching so is there an Intergalactic License we haven't heard of and some players coming from the Galactic Empire All-Star XI to the Metroplex? Will also be interested to see these free fields, free uniforms, free tournament entry, free league entry, etc.

Watch this space...The revolution is coming. The self proclaimed 'elite' clubs are in this for ONE thing...your money...these brilliant 'coaches' you mention are a figment of your imagination. They 'coach' 3, 4 or more teams...miss games, are late to games, run crap practices while verbally abusing young players and drive many to quit the sport because it just isn't fun anymore..Meanwhile they have you destroy your family's weekends to play in endless bullshot 'tournaments' that don't mean jack...but do mean much to their pocketbooks...again...WATCH THIS SPACE for a viable, cost free, fun alternative....Fields will be free, NO uniforms, NO tournaments, NO leagues....NO B/S

Androfan aka Kicksfan wrote:

the7wolf wrote:

tornado11 wrote:

007shaken wrote:Hard to believe in this great big country with millions of kids playing soccer that those are the best defenders we can find.

And you can blame the 'club soccer' pay to play system for that.....ALL the clubs care about is transferring your $$$ to their pockets...too many 'tournaments' (at a team cost of $400-600 per tournament...all to 'win a $3.00 trophy)...the club coaching is mostly crap, mostly abusive and definitely negative, the parents are out of control, the fields are poor, the kids aren't enjoying the game.....there is a cost free alternative coming soon....great fields, central location, NO charge...ZERO.....watch this space...run by people who are more qualified than ANY of the coaches in N.Texas.

Some of the coaches in NTX have UEFA A or B licenses and plenty have USSF A or B. There are also plenty of ex-pros coaching so is there an Intergalactic License we haven't heard of and some players coming from the Galactic Empire All-Star XI to the Metroplex? Will also be interested to see these free fields, free uniforms, free tournament entry, free league entry, etc.

Sorry Wolf, but a license means exactly @#@$$ if the person holding it cant connect with the students/players, doesnt care about them, or what they learn. What it proves is that person sat thru the courses and got out on a pitch usually with a bunch of other coaches and ran a session to pass the test. That an investment in time to increase their earning potential for 98% of them. Nothing more.

I won't disagree with you that in a number of cases, there are licensed coaches I wouldn't trust to catsit or organize the making of a sandwich and all the qualifications in the world doesn't guarantee somebody can connect with kids.

What I'm answering to is the assertion that this new free model somehow has coaches with qualifications higher than actually exist.