CONCACAF U-15 Boys Championship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Basically you're saying dumb the game down for an American audience that can't understand the game outside of goals being scored.

It wouldn't take much to do better. What's crazy is an arm or a foot being offside is offsides to disallow a goal. With ALL the tech, they'd do a lot better to give a wider definition rather than what they enforce now. Make it the feet, not body part and that would be a vast improvement.

An arm being "offside" is not an offense. Neither is a "finger" as another poster mentioned, so, if you have seen this called, that is pretty crazy. Google Law 11 and read up.

I guess you've never seen VAR.

Can you post a YouTube clip of VAR calling offside for an arm?

Here you go if you were wondering...

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

Pretty much any match with VAR from the World Cup to the Gold Cup to Euros you often see an arm or hand or part of foot nullify a goal -- those rulings ruin the flow of the game and make it easy to change the channel ... Regardless ... They should totally loosen offsides rules up and reward play that's "close enough". I mean that's how it's called in 99% of matches without VAR -- although the humans should be more liberal with it and only call clear and obvious offsides -- like make it where both feet are over or something.

Fine. I'm not arguing that changing the rule might help create for goals but I don't watch soccer for the goals. 0-0 games are just as exciting to me as 3-3 games. What I'm arguing is that you do NOT "often see an arm or hand" nullify a goal...because it is not an offside offense. You may see part of a foot because that IS an offside offense.

And I'm arguing making soccer offsides rules a bit more liberal in favor of offense would improve the popularity of the game overall, especially in the USA.

The research shows that implementing the 'daylight' version of the offside rule would increase scoring. Not but my much but still. More goals and fewer offsides calls in general would make the viewing experience 'better' Which should increase the popularity of the game.

The viewing experience for people who only see goals in a game

No, love some great defense and tactics. The offside, the way its called, is too ticky-tack and it HOLDS soccer back. Most of the big sports, BTW, have loosened rules for offense. The ones that get it right, maybe NFL, still reward good defense. But part of the reason for this evolution is player safety -- another reason to call more fouls and increase possible penalties -- another reform that may benefit the game. Maybe make a yellow card a mandatory 2-5 minute off the field to give one team a temporary player advantage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Basically you're saying dumb the game down for an American audience that can't understand the game outside of goals being scored.

It wouldn't take much to do better. What's crazy is an arm or a foot being offside is offsides to disallow a goal. With ALL the tech, they'd do a lot better to give a wider definition rather than what they enforce now. Make it the feet, not body part and that would be a vast improvement.

An arm being "offside" is not an offense. Neither is a "finger" as another poster mentioned, so, if you have seen this called, that is pretty crazy. Google Law 11 and read up.

I guess you've never seen VAR.

Can you post a YouTube clip of VAR calling offside for an arm?

Here you go if you were wondering...

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

Pretty much any match with VAR from the World Cup to the Gold Cup to Euros you often see an arm or hand or part of foot nullify a goal -- those rulings ruin the flow of the game and make it easy to change the channel ... Regardless ... They should totally loosen offsides rules up and reward play that's "close enough". I mean that's how it's called in 99% of matches without VAR -- although the humans should be more liberal with it and only call clear and obvious offsides -- like make it where both feet are over or something.

Fine. I'm not arguing that changing the rule might help create for goals but I don't watch soccer for the goals. 0-0 games are just as exciting to me as 3-3 games. What I'm arguing is that you do NOT "often see an arm or hand" nullify a goal...because it is not an offside offense. You may see part of a foot because that IS an offside offense.

And I'm arguing making soccer offsides rules a bit more liberal in favor of offense would improve the popularity of the game overall, especially in the USA.

The research shows that implementing the 'daylight' version of the offside rule would increase scoring. Not but my much but still. More goals and fewer offsides calls in general would make the viewing experience 'better' Which should increase the popularity of the game.

The viewing experience for people who only see goals in a game

With rules that lead to too many penalty shoot-outs (that's great TV, tho).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Basically you're saying dumb the game down for an American audience that can't understand the game outside of goals being scored.

It wouldn't take much to do better. What's crazy is an arm or a foot being offside is offsides to disallow a goal. With ALL the tech, they'd do a lot better to give a wider definition rather than what they enforce now. Make it the feet, not body part and that would be a vast improvement.

An arm being "offside" is not an offense. Neither is a "finger" as another poster mentioned, so, if you have seen this called, that is pretty crazy. Google Law 11 and read up.

I guess you've never seen VAR.

Can you post a YouTube clip of VAR calling offside for an arm?

Here you go if you were wondering...

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

Pretty much any match with VAR from the World Cup to the Gold Cup to Euros you often see an arm or hand or part of foot nullify a goal -- those rulings ruin the flow of the game and make it easy to change the channel ... Regardless ... They should totally loosen offsides rules up and reward play that's "close enough". I mean that's how it's called in 99% of matches without VAR -- although the humans should be more liberal with it and only call clear and obvious offsides -- like make it where both feet are over or something.

Fine. I'm not arguing that changing the rule might help create for goals but I don't watch soccer for the goals. 0-0 games are just as exciting to me as 3-3 games. What I'm arguing is that you do NOT "often see an arm or hand" nullify a goal...because it is not an offside offense. You may see part of a foot because that IS an offside offense.

And I'm arguing making soccer offsides rules a bit more liberal in favor of offense would improve the popularity of the game overall, especially in the USA.

The research shows that implementing the 'daylight' version of the offside rule would increase scoring. Not but my much but still. More goals and fewer offsides calls in general would make the viewing experience 'better' Which should increase the popularity of the game.

The viewing experience for people who only see goals in a game

Correct. We're trying to increase viewership. That could be done via people who only see goals in a game. Glad you can see that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Basically you're saying dumb the game down for an American audience that can't understand the game outside of goals being scored.

It wouldn't take much to do better. What's crazy is an arm or a foot being offside is offsides to disallow a goal. With ALL the tech, they'd do a lot better to give a wider definition rather than what they enforce now. Make it the feet, not body part and that would be a vast improvement.

An arm being "offside" is not an offense. Neither is a "finger" as another poster mentioned, so, if you have seen this called, that is pretty crazy. Google Law 11 and read up.

I guess you've never seen VAR.

Can you post a YouTube clip of VAR calling offside for an arm?

Here you go if you were wondering...

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

Pretty much any match with VAR from the World Cup to the Gold Cup to Euros you often see an arm or hand or part of foot nullify a goal -- those rulings ruin the flow of the game and make it easy to change the channel ... Regardless ... They should totally loosen offsides rules up and reward play that's "close enough". I mean that's how it's called in 99% of matches without VAR -- although the humans should be more liberal with it and only call clear and obvious offsides -- like make it where both feet are over or something.

Fine. I'm not arguing that changing the rule might help create for goals but I don't watch soccer for the goals. 0-0 games are just as exciting to me as 3-3 games. What I'm arguing is that you do NOT "often see an arm or hand" nullify a goal...because it is not an offside offense. You may see part of a foot because that IS an offside offense.

And I'm arguing making soccer offsides rules a bit more liberal in favor of offense would improve the popularity of the game overall, especially in the USA.

The research shows that implementing the 'daylight' version of the offside rule would increase scoring. Not but my much but still. More goals and fewer offsides calls in general would make the viewing experience 'better' Which should increase the popularity of the game.

The viewing experience for people who only see goals in a game

Correct. We're trying to increase viewership. That could be done via people who only see goals in a game. Glad you can see that!

How about ladies in skimpy outfits on the sidelines?
Puppy races at halftime?

Dumb it down to satisfy those who can't bring their intelligence up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Basically you're saying dumb the game down for an American audience that can't understand the game outside of goals being scored.

It wouldn't take much to do better. What's crazy is an arm or a foot being offside is offsides to disallow a goal. With ALL the tech, they'd do a lot better to give a wider definition rather than what they enforce now. Make it the feet, not body part and that would be a vast improvement.

An arm being "offside" is not an offense. Neither is a "finger" as another poster mentioned, so, if you have seen this called, that is pretty crazy. Google Law 11 and read up.

I guess you've never seen VAR.

Can you post a YouTube clip of VAR calling offside for an arm?

Here you go if you were wondering...

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

Pretty much any match with VAR from the World Cup to the Gold Cup to Euros you often see an arm or hand or part of foot nullify a goal -- those rulings ruin the flow of the game and make it easy to change the channel ... Regardless ... They should totally loosen offsides rules up and reward play that's "close enough". I mean that's how it's called in 99% of matches without VAR -- although the humans should be more liberal with it and only call clear and obvious offsides -- like make it where both feet are over or something.

Fine. I'm not arguing that changing the rule might help create for goals but I don't watch soccer for the goals. 0-0 games are just as exciting to me as 3-3 games. What I'm arguing is that you do NOT "often see an arm or hand" nullify a goal...because it is not an offside offense. You may see part of a foot because that IS an offside offense.

And I'm arguing making soccer offsides rules a bit more liberal in favor of offense would improve the popularity of the game overall, especially in the USA.

The research shows that implementing the 'daylight' version of the offside rule would increase scoring. Not but my much but still. More goals and fewer offsides calls in general would make the viewing experience 'better' Which should increase the popularity of the game.

The viewing experience for people who only see goals in a game

Correct. We're trying to increase viewership. That could be done via people who only see goals in a game. Glad you can see that!

How about ladies in skimpy outfits on the sidelines?
Puppy races at halftime?

Dumb it down to satisfy those who can't bring their intelligence up

Cheerleaders and halftime shows are mainstays in other sports -- BUT I think easing up on offsides and maybe calling more fouls/sending players off temporarily (like the penalty box in hockey) would be positive changes.

Ironically, all this great defense ONLY tends to lead to penalty shoot outs -- which ironically -- while good TV -- make it way too easy to score AFTER it's way too hard for 120 minutes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Basically you're saying dumb the game down for an American audience that can't understand the game outside of goals being scored.

It wouldn't take much to do better. What's crazy is an arm or a foot being offside is offsides to disallow a goal. With ALL the tech, they'd do a lot better to give a wider definition rather than what they enforce now. Make it the feet, not body part and that would be a vast improvement.

An arm being "offside" is not an offense. Neither is a "finger" as another poster mentioned, so, if you have seen this called, that is pretty crazy. Google Law 11 and read up.

I guess you've never seen VAR.

Can you post a YouTube clip of VAR calling offside for an arm?

Here you go if you were wondering...

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

Pretty much any match with VAR from the World Cup to the Gold Cup to Euros you often see an arm or hand or part of foot nullify a goal -- those rulings ruin the flow of the game and make it easy to change the channel ... Regardless ... They should totally loosen offsides rules up and reward play that's "close enough". I mean that's how it's called in 99% of matches without VAR -- although the humans should be more liberal with it and only call clear and obvious offsides -- like make it where both feet are over or something.

Fine. I'm not arguing that changing the rule might help create for goals but I don't watch soccer for the goals. 0-0 games are just as exciting to me as 3-3 games. What I'm arguing is that you do NOT "often see an arm or hand" nullify a goal...because it is not an offside offense. You may see part of a foot because that IS an offside offense.

And I'm arguing making soccer offsides rules a bit more liberal in favor of offense would improve the popularity of the game overall, especially in the USA.

The research shows that implementing the 'daylight' version of the offside rule would increase scoring. Not but my much but still. More goals and fewer offsides calls in general would make the viewing experience 'better' Which should increase the popularity of the game.

The viewing experience for people who only see goals in a game

Correct. We're trying to increase viewership. That could be done via people who only see goals in a game. Glad you can see that!

How about ladies in skimpy outfits on the sidelines?
Puppy races at halftime?

Dumb it down to satisfy those who can't bring their intelligence up

Cheerleaders and halftime shows are mainstays in other sports -- BUT I think easing up on offsides and maybe calling more fouls/sending players off temporarily (like the penalty box in hockey) would be positive changes.

Ironically, all this great defense ONLY tends to lead to penalty shoot outs -- which ironically -- while good TV -- make it way too easy to score AFTER it's way too hard for 120 minutes!

Soccer doesn't need sideshow entertainment and distractions
Over a Billion people who understand and appreciate the sport watch and enjoy

You need stage show acts to fill the void of real action at football games for 3 hours with less than 20 minutes of action

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Do away with heading the ball would be a better move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Soccer purists would object, but the game probably would become more popular, in the USA especially, IF they relaxed the offsides rule and enabled more offense to happen.

Do away with heading the ball would be a better move.

So . . . less scoring?

[Anonymous]

Soccer is fine the way it is. It will also never be very popular in the US. Most of the soccer watched in the US is from abroad (Premier League, La Liga, etc.) MLS soccer viewership is below the other major pro sports, but it's also below college football/basketball, and even sports like golf, car racing, UFC.

To give some context, ESPN's main channel is showing the little league world series all this month. A baseball tournament for 12 year olds is on major television. Not just the championship game but early regional rounds. Could you imagine a U13 Jeff Cup soccer tournament on ESPN?

[Anonymous]

Do any of you have kids in school? I do. Ask them the most popular sports or what they talk about with friends. It’s soccer at my DS’s school. American football and lacrosse still get the alumni and administrators’ attention. But the teen boys lean toward soccer in a way I never would have guessed until I asked why talks so much soccer.

So maybe, just maybe, the old folks on this chat don’t know as much as we think about what wil make soccer “better”. I have my opinions, but the sport is soaring like never before in the U.S. and worldwide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is must watch for parents with kids in the US soccer system, at any age really. PLEASE watch the US team and you will see on full display what is wrong with our system in the US and the way we both recruit and cultivate talent.

We have a team of players that have good physical attributes. That assessment can be reduced to either speed and/or size. Not size dependent totally as there are some smaller kids on the roster (we had the smallest player on the field at left back) but speed and power are clearly the priority. Against Saudi Arabia in the first match, we were not the better team in the first half against a smaller, slower, less physical but FAR more technical team. They had 3 or 4 really good chances on goal in the first half and it could easily have been 4-1 for them at half time. But the goals didn't drop for them. But they had the quality to get the opportunities. They combined and passed well. First touches were noticeably better than ours. Decision making was also better. They just didn't have the physical quality to withstand our dueling. We were up 1-0 at half time but it was a really dismal display for the US team.

We couldn't string together more than three passes in the first half and our striker LITERALLY didn't have one touch in the first half. Not one. Many errant giveaway passes, over dribbling, over faking and moves, just too much of all the wrong things. It looked like we didn't understand the game and how to move the ball from one end of the field to the other to score. We scored another goal in the second half on a good through ball and someone just outrunning the defense. The Saudi team got a red card and had someone sent off after the goal and we couldn't score when they had a man down. Largely because it would require better passing and control to beat a very low block. Something we couldn't execute technically. If you have a youth player in the US please take note of these issues and show your player.

What you clearly see with this US squad is a system that is failing these kids. They aren't learning how to actually play soccer. They learn how to run hard, tackle the ball (like American football) and dribble and shoot. The quality of their fundamentals is noticeably lower and almost none of them have quality on their non dominant foot. So much so that they were predicable even to the Saudi team. Decision making is also really poor. Chipping, trapping with all parts of body, shielding, off the ball movement both in and out of possession looked marginally better than what you see in regular MLS next games and that is not good enough for international football.

I would offer that there is absolutely no way this US squad will win this tournament and to be honest, I wouldn't be shocked if they lost to Costa Rica today. I write this because I was just shocked when I saw this game and the quality (or lack thereof) and thought to myself, something needs to dramatically change in our country. We have so many kids playing the sport in this country and you're telling me this is the best we can do?? Of course we could have a whole conversation about the politics of team selection and we all know it is political. Even still, it HAS to be better than this.

I guess you called it. They lost to CRC, 2-1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is must watch for parents with kids in the US soccer system, at any age really. PLEASE watch the US team and you will see on full display what is wrong with our system in the US and the way we both recruit and cultivate talent.

We have a team of players that have good physical attributes. That assessment can be reduced to either speed and/or size. Not size dependent totally as there are some smaller kids on the roster (we had the smallest player on the field at left back) but speed and power are clearly the priority. Against Saudi Arabia in the first match, we were not the better team in the first half against a smaller, slower, less physical but FAR more technical team. They had 3 or 4 really good chances on goal in the first half and it could easily have been 4-1 for them at half time. But the goals didn't drop for them. But they had the quality to get the opportunities. They combined and passed well. First touches were noticeably better than ours. Decision making was also better. They just didn't have the physical quality to withstand our dueling. We were up 1-0 at half time but it was a really dismal display for the US team.

We couldn't string together more than three passes in the first half and our striker LITERALLY didn't have one touch in the first half. Not one. Many errant giveaway passes, over dribbling, over faking and moves, just too much of all the wrong things. It looked like we didn't understand the game and how to move the ball from one end of the field to the other to score. We scored another goal in the second half on a good through ball and someone just outrunning the defense. The Saudi team got a red card and had someone sent off after the goal and we couldn't score when they had a man down. Largely because it would require better passing and control to beat a very low block. Something we couldn't execute technically. If you have a youth player in the US please take note of these issues and show your player.

What you clearly see with this US squad is a system that is failing these kids. They aren't learning how to actually play soccer. They learn how to run hard, tackle the ball (like American football) and dribble and shoot. The quality of their fundamentals is noticeably lower and almost none of them have quality on their non dominant foot. So much so that they were predicable even to the Saudi team. Decision making is also really poor. Chipping, trapping with all parts of body, shielding, off the ball movement both in and out of possession looked marginally better than what you see in regular MLS next games and that is not good enough for international football.

I would offer that there is absolutely no way this US squad will win this tournament and to be honest, I wouldn't be shocked if they lost to Costa Rica today. I write this because I was just shocked when I saw this game and the quality (or lack thereof) and thought to myself, something needs to dramatically change in our country. We have so many kids playing the sport in this country and you're telling me this is the best we can do?? Of course we could have a whole conversation about the politics of team selection and we all know it is political. Even still, it HAS to be better than this.

I guess you called it. They lost to CRC, 2-1

is this US 15 group cream of the crops?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is must watch for parents with kids in the US soccer system, at any age really. PLEASE watch the US team and you will see on full display what is wrong with our system in the US and the way we both recruit and cultivate talent.

We have a team of players that have good physical attributes. That assessment can be reduced to either speed and/or size. Not size dependent totally as there are some smaller kids on the roster (we had the smallest player on the field at left back) but speed and power are clearly the priority. Against Saudi Arabia in the first match, we were not the better team in the first half against a smaller, slower, less physical but FAR more technical team. They had 3 or 4 really good chances on goal in the first half and it could easily have been 4-1 for them at half time. But the goals didn't drop for them. But they had the quality to get the opportunities. They combined and passed well. First touches were noticeably better than ours. Decision making was also better. They just didn't have the physical quality to withstand our dueling. We were up 1-0 at half time but it was a really dismal display for the US team.

We couldn't string together more than three passes in the first half and our striker LITERALLY didn't have one touch in the first half. Not one. Many errant giveaway passes, over dribbling, over faking and moves, just too much of all the wrong things. It looked like we didn't understand the game and how to move the ball from one end of the field to the other to score. We scored another goal in the second half on a good through ball and someone just outrunning the defense. The Saudi team got a red card and had someone sent off after the goal and we couldn't score when they had a man down. Largely because it would require better passing and control to beat a very low block. Something we couldn't execute technically. If you have a youth player in the US please take note of these issues and show your player.

What you clearly see with this US squad is a system that is failing these kids. They aren't learning how to actually play soccer. They learn how to run hard, tackle the ball (like American football) and dribble and shoot. The quality of their fundamentals is noticeably lower and almost none of them have quality on their non dominant foot. So much so that they were predicable even to the Saudi team. Decision making is also really poor. Chipping, trapping with all parts of body, shielding, off the ball movement both in and out of possession looked marginally better than what you see in regular MLS next games and that is not good enough for international football.

I would offer that there is absolutely no way this US squad will win this tournament and to be honest, I wouldn't be shocked if they lost to Costa Rica today. I write this because I was just shocked when I saw this game and the quality (or lack thereof) and thought to myself, something needs to dramatically change in our country. We have so many kids playing the sport in this country and you're telling me this is the best we can do?? Of course we could have a whole conversation about the politics of team selection and we all know it is political. Even still, it HAS to be better than this.

I guess you called it. They lost to CRC, 2-1

is this US 15 group cream of the crops?

weak D who the heck picked these players

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is must watch for parents with kids in the US soccer system, at any age really. PLEASE watch the US team and you will see on full display what is wrong with our system in the US and the way we both recruit and cultivate talent.

We have a team of players that have good physical attributes. That assessment can be reduced to either speed and/or size. Not size dependent totally as there are some smaller kids on the roster (we had the smallest player on the field at left back) but speed and power are clearly the priority. Against Saudi Arabia in the first match, we were not the better team in the first half against a smaller, slower, less physical but FAR more technical team. They had 3 or 4 really good chances on goal in the first half and it could easily have been 4-1 for them at half time. But the goals didn't drop for them. But they had the quality to get the opportunities. They combined and passed well. First touches were noticeably better than ours. Decision making was also better. They just didn't have the physical quality to withstand our dueling. We were up 1-0 at half time but it was a really dismal display for the US team.

We couldn't string together more than three passes in the first half and our striker LITERALLY didn't have one touch in the first half. Not one. Many errant giveaway passes, over dribbling, over faking and moves, just too much of all the wrong things. It looked like we didn't understand the game and how to move the ball from one end of the field to the other to score. We scored another goal in the second half on a good through ball and someone just outrunning the defense. The Saudi team got a red card and had someone sent off after the goal and we couldn't score when they had a man down. Largely because it would require better passing and control to beat a very low block. Something we couldn't execute technically. If you have a youth player in the US please take note of these issues and show your player.

What you clearly see with this US squad is a system that is failing these kids. They aren't learning how to actually play soccer. They learn how to run hard, tackle the ball (like American football) and dribble and shoot. The quality of their fundamentals is noticeably lower and almost none of them have quality on their non dominant foot. So much so that they were predicable even to the Saudi team. Decision making is also really poor. Chipping, trapping with all parts of body, shielding, off the ball movement both in and out of possession looked marginally better than what you see in regular MLS next games and that is not good enough for international football.

I would offer that there is absolutely no way this US squad will win this tournament and to be honest, I wouldn't be shocked if they lost to Costa Rica today. I write this because I was just shocked when I saw this game and the quality (or lack thereof) and thought to myself, something needs to dramatically change in our country. We have so many kids playing the sport in this country and you're telling me this is the best we can do?? Of course we could have a whole conversation about the politics of team selection and we all know it is political. Even still, it HAS to be better than this.

I guess you called it. They lost to CRC, 2-1

is this US 15 group cream of the crops?

Are ignorant folks here thinking Costa Rica isn't a soccer playing country?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you have kids in school? I do. Ask them the most popular sports or what they talk about with friends. It’s soccer at my DS’s school. American football and lacrosse still get the alumni and administrators’ attention. But the teen boys lean toward soccer in a way I never would have guessed until I asked why talks so much soccer.

So maybe, just maybe, the old folks on this chat don’t know as much as we think about what wil make soccer “better”. I have my opinions, but the sport is soaring like never before in the U.S. and worldwide.

Where do your kids go to school? Because that is absolutely NOT the case where we live in Virginia. My kids mostly play basketball around the neighborhood and they all watch and follow NFL. I see lots of football jerseys at the bus stop in the Fall.