How Technical are the Girls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol. One game. Smh.

I saw nothing in that one game that indicated the result would be different if they played again in two days. Barca was the better team by far. But that is how sports are, you get one game sometimes to make the most of it. I know they are young but they looked severely outplayed in that one game.

So keep shaking your head I guess. PDA lost, lost bad and that is likely all their coach could do too, shake his head wondering what happened.

Seriously, what’s your deep fascination with PDA? It’s becoming very creepy.

Agree. He is creepy and reaching.

[Anonymous]

Why does this one dad keep posting about a u15 girls game. Was your kid cut from PDA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does this one dad keep posting about a u15 girls game. Was your kid cut from PDA

Two posts, bringing it up again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

They may be technical but they certainly were not very tactical. The style they did attempt to play and did play throughout the tournament, all games on YouTube, did not demonstrate a style that demanded a particularly high level of technical ability. The inability to recognize that is demonstrative of our cultural understanding of the game.

If they were better trained they would have been better able to adapt in game as necessary.

Keep in mind, the head coach's best idea at kickoff was to kick the ball DEEP into Barca territory, presumably because he felt they could rattle Barca. Or, even worse, he kicked off deep because he saw them play throughout the tournament and knew there was no way his team could maintain possession so better to run at them and hope they get rattled and make a mistake.

So which would prefer? The coach was so naive that he honestly believed that Barca is inept at playing out of the back OR he lacked the confidence that his team was capable of maintaining possession so get the ball deep and hope to pen Barca in?

The PDA coach was so afraid to losing the ball in the pda end that he instructed them to kick it long off the kick? Maybe that’s a play they run against everyone and it might work. Are you a coach or a parent? I feel sorry for anyone that interacts with you in person.

So he was so naive that he thought a set kickoff play would work against a team that plays out of the back like a religion. Ok. Go with that then.

How did it work out? Because I believe the next time they saw the ball again it was when they had to kick off after being scored against.

I give you an ‘A’ for effort, but you are talking to hard-headed Dads who probably played baseball growing up. They’d be horrified if they went to a Little League game and saw a kid swinging one-handed and wouldn’t accept a response of “Well Johnny hit 2 HRs like that last game!” because they understand the technical aspects of baseball, but for whatever reason can’t see it with soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

A NCSL team goes undefeated for two years. Are they a good team?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

A NCSL team goes undefeated for two years. Are they a good team?

Can you please just stop? Let’s get back to determining how to get our girls to be more technical without the need to go to Europe.

While it is understood that most coaches don’t value technical skills as much as speed/size. But is it true for all positions? I can see why coaches want fast/big kids for forwards and backs, but do they value more technical skills for midfielders?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

A NCSL team goes undefeated for two years. Are they a good team?

Can you please just stop? Let’s get back to determining how to get our girls to be more technical without the need to go to Europe.

While it is understood that most coaches don’t value technical skills as much as speed/size. But is it true for all positions? I can see why coaches want fast/big kids for forwards and backs, but do they value more technical skills for midfielders?

I think many coaches think they can coach technical skills and soccer IQ, but can’t coach natural speed, quickness, coordination, etc. hence why they’ll often take the better atheletes over the more seasoned, technically sound player. The better coaches build a team that has a mix of both and then work to shore up their players’ weaknesses while also taking advantage of greatest strengths during a match.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

A NCSL team goes undefeated for two years. Are they a good team?

Can you please just stop? Let’s get back to determining how to get our girls to be more technical without the need to go to Europe.

While it is understood that most coaches don’t value technical skills as much as speed/size. But is it true for all positions? I can see why coaches want fast/big kids for forwards and backs, but do they value more technical skills for midfielders?

The conclusion then is wins do not equate good beyond a relative sense.

Thanks for playing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

A NCSL team goes undefeated for two years. Are they a good team?

Can you please just stop? Let’s get back to determining how to get our girls to be more technical without the need to go to Europe.

While it is understood that most coaches don’t value technical skills as much as speed/size. But is it true for all positions? I can see why coaches want fast/big kids for forwards and backs, but do they value more technical skills for midfielders?

I think many coaches think they can coach technical skills and soccer IQ, but can’t coach natural speed, quickness, coordination, etc. hence why they’ll often take the better atheletes over the more seasoned, technically sound player. The better coaches build a team that has a mix of both and then work to shore up their players’ weaknesses while also taking advantage of greatest strengths during a match.

The problem is, they don’t really teach or develop the technical side of those fast players. Instead, they usually go with the path of least resistance and play a simple style that can take advantage of the team speed without relying on highly technical play.

So the team wins, parents are happy and through their success perhaps they can bring in a couple of technical players to help out.

That is how it plays out 9 out of 10 times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

A NCSL team goes undefeated for two years. Are they a good team?

Actually, the discussion on "technical ability" in this thread is the real nonsense. The Barca nazi on this thread only cares about style of play, and winning or losing matters not, as long as the team looks "good" doing it. It's clear that their style of play is no magic elixir, as many have shown the way to dismantle it. Style of play is a choice, and there are many good options. Drawing conclusions that suit your preference based on a single game is downright silly.

This, however, is a great question. The answer is "yes" relative to their division, they are, by definition. the best team that season. Relative to other leagues, harder to say unless they play those teams, though we know the reality is that there are other leagues, for example, MLS/GA/ECNL, depending on gender, that trump NCSL. Of course, teams with lesser records in any league aren't necessarily "bad" teams, and even players on the worst performing team aren't necessarily "bad," players with no technnical ability.

[Anonymous]

Why can't a midfielder also be big and fast?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the original question that was posed in this thread was, how technical are the girls?

The thread has now diverged into a discussion of the future prospects of the women's national team. Although the two might be related to an extent, it appears that even those commenters who are confident that the women's national team will remain an international force for decades to come have recognized that the girls aren't very technical. And the video evidence from that entire tournament--not just the PDA vs Barca final--would substantiate that conclusion.

When elite girls teams can win at the highest levels without playing technical soccer, there is very little pressure on American coaches and clubs to implement the type of intense technical training that would be necessary to change things up. Because "winning" at youth levels is prioritized over technical development.

I don't think people have come to your "consensus" that girls aren't very technical. One game doesn't substantiate a conclusion and as another poster pointed out, American teams dominated other European teams.

This dead horse argument just keeps on riding, doesn't it?

Again, you’re focusing on the wrong questions and demonstrating the precise problem pointed out in the post you responded to. “Dominated” how? Because they won games? How does a score line prove technical ability?

So, are we talking about a sport here or an art class? Seems some folks are more interested in looking good vs. actually being good. Gotcha. Good luck with that.

A NCSL team goes undefeated for two years. Are they a good team?

Can you please just stop? Let’s get back to determining how to get our girls to be more technical without the need to go to Europe.

While it is understood that most [b]coaches don’t value technical skills as m[/b]uch as speed/size. But is it true for all positions? I can see why coaches want fast/big kids for forwards and backs, but do they value more technical skills for midfielders?

The conclusion then is wins do not equate good beyond a relative sense.

Thanks for playing.

This is called “kiss the coach as&” so he’ll value your technical skills.

[Anonymous]

Style of play is not the same thing as an individual player’s technical ability. A player with strong technical skills would be able to play in many different systems. A player with weak technical skills would not be able to adapt.

Another huge difference we are seeing emerge in this thread is the different objectives of US youth soccer as compared to European academies. In the US, as demonstrated on this thread, since most of the soccer dads just want their daughter to “win” at youth level and maybe get a college scholarship/admissions preference nod, there’s just not much emphasis on true technical development. And so winning matches in this ICC tournament means that the US girls “dominated” and are “better.” The European academies just don’t look at it that way.