Freddy Adu tweet on US soccer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story that was mentioned about Pulisic is exactly the issue. In the US, we focus on the fastest and the strongest and bet that their skills will catch up. In Europe, they focus on technical ability and bet that the physical side will even out once everyone grows. Most of the time, the European bet wins. This is exacerbated by how few professional level academies per capita there are in the US - developing kids is to some extent a lottery, and they’re buying 1000 tickets for every 10 that we buy.

This is like 75% the way there.

Most academies in the US don’t focus on size anymore.

It’s really simpler - the best model is focusing on controlling the controllable. Teaching skill, soccer IQ, good teamwork etc is controllable. The physical side is somewhat, but the genetic component isn’t. So they just control what they can.

At the end of the day speed matters a lot at the top level. At the top levels everyone can do the technical requirements - it’s speed that separates those that keep climbing and those that don’t. Size helps, but it isn’t really a huge factor when you’re talking about a handful of inches in a sport largely played on the ground.

It's speed of play that increases at the highest levels. Not speed.
Speed of play is driven by IQ making quicker good decisions.

Not about how fast one runs.

Not sure why you assumed speed was only defined as one’s running speed. If I meant running speed I would have said running speed.

You said speed separates
Every elite level club have fast players.

Speed of play separates. Not 40 yard dash times.

The id camp my kid went to was doing timed 30 yard dashes. It said a lot about the coaching staff….

That they want metric based assessments? And they don’t want kids that

are too slow to compete?

I am sure the only thing the coaches did at the entire ID camp was time the 30yd dashes.

Some coaches at ID camps make players juggle in times tests too, or around timed obstacle courses! And time and count juggles!

Waste of time. If something is not done under pressure why do it? Let the kids scrimmage. You can pick out the top 1-2% in five minutes. Top 25% in 10 minutes. It’s not hard if you watch a lot of soccer and know what to look for.

Timing juggles seems pointless but juggling and juggling drills are definitely not. And kids need to be proficient and confident in their touch and skills to execute it under pressure.

I have kids in the 1-2 % and top 25% of your example. Both are excellent jugglers with the better one spending way more time trying to juggle well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story that was mentioned about Pulisic is exactly the issue. In the US, we focus on the fastest and the strongest and bet that their skills will catch up. In Europe, they focus on technical ability and bet that the physical side will even out once everyone grows. Most of the time, the European bet wins. This is exacerbated by how few professional level academies per capita there are in the US - developing kids is to some extent a lottery, and they’re buying 1000 tickets for every 10 that we buy.

This is like 75% the way there.

Most academies in the US don’t focus on size anymore.

It’s really simpler - the best model is focusing on controlling the controllable. Teaching skill, soccer IQ, good teamwork etc is controllable. The physical side is somewhat, but the genetic component isn’t. So they just control what they can.

At the end of the day speed matters a lot at the top level. At the top levels everyone can do the technical requirements - it’s speed that separates those that keep climbing and those that don’t. Size helps, but it isn’t really a huge factor when you’re talking about a handful of inches in a sport largely played on the ground.

It's speed of play that increases at the highest levels. Not speed.
Speed of play is driven by IQ making quicker good decisions.

Not about how fast one runs.

Not sure why you assumed speed was only defined as one’s running speed. If I meant running speed I would have said running speed.

You said speed separates
Every elite level club have fast players.

Speed of play separates. Not 40 yard dash times.

The id camp my kid went to was doing timed 30 yard dashes. It said a lot about the coaching staff….

That they want metric based assessments? And they don’t want kids that

are too slow to compete?

I am sure the only thing the coaches did at the entire ID camp was time the 30yd dashes.

Some coaches at ID camps make players juggle in times tests too, or around timed obstacle courses! And time and count juggles!

Waste of time. If something is not done under pressure why do it? Let the kids scrimmage. You can pick out the top 1-2% in five minutes. Top 25% in 10 minutes. It’s not hard if you watch a lot of soccer and know what to look for.

Timing juggles seems pointless but juggling and juggling drills are definitely not. And kids need to be proficient and confident in their touch and skills to execute it under pressure.

I have kids in the 1-2 % and top 25% of your example. Both are excellent jugglers with the better one spending way more time trying to juggle well.

Judging soccer ability on juggling is a waste if time. I've seen players juggle for 5 minutes straight but consistently make the worst on field decisions. Juggling is a skill that can be mastered by anyone that dedicated time to do it but knowing how to play on the field is different. Juggling is great to improve touch skills but it doesn't equate to being a good player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story that was mentioned about Pulisic is exactly the issue. In the US, we focus on the fastest and the strongest and bet that their skills will catch up. In Europe, they focus on technical ability and bet that the physical side will even out once everyone grows. Most of the time, the European bet wins. This is exacerbated by how few professional level academies per capita there are in the US - developing kids is to some extent a lottery, and they’re buying 1000 tickets for every 10 that we buy.

This is like 75% the way there.

Most academies in the US don’t focus on size anymore.

It’s really simpler - the best model is focusing on controlling the controllable. Teaching skill, soccer IQ, good teamwork etc is controllable. The physical side is somewhat, but the genetic component isn’t. So they just control what they can.

At the end of the day speed matters a lot at the top level. At the top levels everyone can do the technical requirements - it’s speed that separates those that keep climbing and those that don’t. Size helps, but it isn’t really a huge factor when you’re talking about a handful of inches in a sport largely played on the ground.

It's speed of play that increases at the highest levels. Not speed.
Speed of play is driven by IQ making quicker good decisions.

Not about how fast one runs.

Not sure why you assumed speed was only defined as one’s running speed. If I meant running speed I would have said running speed.

You said speed separates
Every elite level club have fast players.

Speed of play separates. Not 40 yard dash times.

The id camp my kid went to was doing timed 30 yard dashes. It said a lot about the coaching staff….

That they want metric based assessments? And they don’t want kids that

are too slow to compete?

I am sure the only thing the coaches did at the entire ID camp was time the 30yd dashes.

Some coaches at ID camps make players juggle in times tests too, or around timed obstacle courses! And time and count juggles!

Waste of time. If something is not done under pressure why do it? Let the kids scrimmage. You can pick out the top 1-2% in five minutes. Top 25% in 10 minutes. It’s not hard if you watch a lot of soccer and know what to look for.

Timing juggles seems pointless but juggling and juggling drills are definitely not. And kids need to be proficient and confident in their touch and skills to execute it under pressure.

I have kids in the 1-2 % and top 25% of your example. Both are excellent jugglers with the better one spending way more time trying to juggle well.

Judging soccer ability on juggling is a waste if time. I've seen players juggle for 5 minutes straight but consistently make the worst on field decisions. Juggling is a skill that can be mastered by anyone that dedicated time to do it but knowing how to play on the field is different. Juggling is great to improve touch skills but it doesn't equate to being a good player.

I think that’s consistent with what I said. One kid is the far better player bc of time spent on the ball, including dedicated juggling practice and working on their own and through practices and games. Other kid is one of the better jugglers on their team but is just a middling player bc of his own effort (or lack of it and interest).

I still would judge a player by juggling skills though. Means a player that puts time on the ball and can be taught decision making and execution much easier than someone who has no touch. So maybe not the best player always but more likely to have the better potential.

[Anonymous]

OMG, I could not imagine what kind of soccer player Tyreek Hill or Ja Morant could have been if they played soccer instead of basketball or football yet alone 100s of others. Use who is widely considered the #1 player in the world and his similarities to an NFL WR, Mbappe.

The people here who think NFL/NBA players aren’t difference makers are, meh, I won’t insult…

Bottom line is it doesn’t matter. We have NFL and NBA and it’s not going to change. The what if approach is a moot point.

What is not is that we are not even getting close to our top athletes investing in soccer. Regardless, as previously pointed out, with the population of the US, we absolutely should be doing better.

I personally think it’s selfishness (or low IQ) on the men’s side and a lack of creativity on the offensive side. Pulisic is really our only player who plays with creativity. Clint Dempsey was actually fairly creative for being an American Forward during his time.

Elite players need to be taught unselfishness and creativity at the same time. That’s how goals come. Creating space to either collapse the defense and drop a pass or create space to get off a shot. Both need creativity. You do not see US Soccer this way but instead panic and forced shots around the box.

Oh, we really need a GK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story that was mentioned about Pulisic is exactly the issue. In the US, we focus on the fastest and the strongest and bet that their skills will catch up. In Europe, they focus on technical ability and bet that the physical side will even out once everyone grows. Most of the time, the European bet wins. This is exacerbated by how few professional level academies per capita there are in the US - developing kids is to some extent a lottery, and they’re buying 1000 tickets for every 10 that we buy.

This is like 75% the way there.

Most academies in the US don’t focus on size anymore.

It’s really simpler - the best model is focusing on controlling the controllable. Teaching skill, soccer IQ, good teamwork etc is controllable. The physical side is somewhat, but the genetic component isn’t. So they just control what they can.

At the end of the day speed matters a lot at the top level. At the top levels everyone can do the technical requirements - it’s speed that separates those that keep climbing and those that don’t. Size helps, but it isn’t really a huge factor when you’re talking about a handful of inches in a sport largely played on the ground.

It's speed of play that increases at the highest levels. Not speed.
Speed of play is driven by IQ making quicker good decisions.

Not about how fast one runs.

Not sure why you assumed speed was only defined as one’s running speed. If I meant running speed I would have said running speed.

You said speed separates
Every elite level club have fast players.

Speed of play separates. Not 40 yard dash times.

The id camp my kid went to was doing timed 30 yard dashes. It said a lot about the coaching staff….

That they want metric based assessments? And they don’t want kids that

are too slow to compete?

I am sure the only thing the coaches did at the entire ID camp was time the 30yd dashes.

Some coaches at ID camps make players juggle in times tests too, or around timed obstacle courses! And time and count juggles!

Waste of time. If something is not done under pressure why do it? Let the kids scrimmage. You can pick out the top 1-2% in five minutes. Top 25% in 10 minutes. It’s not hard if you watch a lot of soccer and know what to look for.

Timing juggles seems pointless but juggling and juggling drills are definitely not. And kids need to be proficient and confident in their touch and skills to execute it under pressure.

I have kids in the 1-2 % and top 25% of your example. Both are excellent jugglers with the better one spending way more time trying to juggle well.

Judging soccer ability on juggling is a waste if time. I've seen players juggle for 5 minutes straight but consistently make the worst on field decisions. Juggling is a skill that can be mastered by anyone that dedicated time to do it but knowing how to play on the field is different. Juggling is great to improve touch skills but it doesn't equate to being a good player.

Never seen a good or elite player who couldn't juggle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technical skill isn't important in America. They want ' athletic strong' aka large, fast, and really aggressive over skills. The amount of parents I've talked to who are extremely frustrated with coaches just flat out saying their kid doesn't fit on their roster because they're highly technical but on the smaller side is indicative of this. If you look at who dominates in ECNL it's West Coast and Texan players who are big and just throw their bodies at people over having actual foot skills. Sure, they can all blast the ball extremely hard to the back of the net; but then we wonder why we get obliterated in international play when actually technical players absolutely shut our national team players down in both men's and women's soccer. Anyone who disagrees with this can just watch an almost 40-year-old Messi absolutely dribble circles around an entire back line of American MLS players completely past his prime as though he's just taking a leisurely walk down the field before scoring.

Here's to hoping at some point we stopped treating soccer like American football in this country.

If the “technical” kids are getting destroyed by the bigger kids, maybe they are not that technical or good.

If you don't know why a U11 team with bigger, stronger, faster early bloomers can kick and run past technical smaller kids then you probably shouldn't be commenting

Enlighten us.

You may be the only person on the entire DCUM who doesn't know the early bloomers physical advantages at younger ages

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technical skill isn't important in America. They want ' athletic strong' aka large, fast, and really aggressive over skills. The amount of parents I've talked to who are extremely frustrated with coaches just flat out saying their kid doesn't fit on their roster because they're highly technical but on the smaller side is indicative of this. If you look at who dominates in ECNL it's West Coast and Texan players who are big and just throw their bodies at people over having actual foot skills. Sure, they can all blast the ball extremely hard to the back of the net; but then we wonder why we get obliterated in international play when actually technical players absolutely shut our national team players down in both men's and women's soccer. Anyone who disagrees with this can just watch an almost 40-year-old Messi absolutely dribble circles around an entire back line of American MLS players completely past his prime as though he's just taking a leisurely walk down the field before scoring.

Here's to hoping at some point we stopped treating soccer like American football in this country.

If the “technical” kids are getting destroyed by the bigger kids, maybe they are not that technical or good.

I feel like an SYC parent made this comment. 😆 But there is some truth in this. Technical kids at some point may often not be better than a bigger less technical kid (assuming that’s based on whose team wins more).

The upside is the kids on the technical team will likely have a longer soccer career bc they have to rely on their technical skills so much. By the time puberty/growth happens for them, they’ll have the strength and speed to maximize their technical skills.

Not that bigger kids don’t have the technical skills, just that they’ve never been forced to rely on them or consider them an equal option when speed and strength has always been their go to. They become very predictable players.

You're overlooking the fact that the bigger stronger and faster kids will pickup technical skills too. In the end, we still end up with poor performing USMNTs.

No I explicitly said that bigger players have technical skills too but they just spent years not relying on them in match play. All the extra training that kids do to remain technically skilled is useless if they’re not on a team that uses those skills at practice and game day.

If you relied on being bigger, faster and using primarily physical advantage in place of technical & IQ, you will run into a brick wall trying to make a team that prioritizes possession later

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG, I could not imagine what kind of soccer player Tyreek Hill or Ja Morant could have been if they played soccer instead of basketball or football yet alone 100s of others. Use who is widely considered the #1 player in the world and his similarities to an NFL WR, Mbappe.

The people here who think NFL/NBA players aren’t difference makers are, meh, I won’t insult…

Bottom line is it doesn’t matter. We have NFL and NBA and it’s not going to change. The what if approach is a moot point.

What is not is that we are not even getting close to our top athletes investing in soccer. Regardless, as previously pointed out, with the population of the US, we absolutely should be doing better.

I personally think it’s selfishness (or low IQ) on the men’s side and a lack of creativity on the offensive side. Pulisic is really our only player who plays with creativity. Clint Dempsey was actually fairly creative for being an American Forward during his time.

Elite players need to be taught unselfishness and creativity at the same time. That’s how goals come. Creating space to either collapse the defense and drop a pass or create space to get off a shot. Both need creativity. You do not see US Soccer this way but instead panic and forced shots around the box.

Oh, we really need a GK.

How many times and from how many people must you hear your foolish nba and NFL players wet dream demolished for lack of intelligence and zero substance?

Yes, Kevin Durant and and Offensive Lineman from the Cowboys can replace Pulisic and Adams

[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:The story that was mentioned about Pulisic is exactly the issue. In the US, we focus on the fastest and the strongest and bet that their skills will catch up. In Europe, they focus on technical ability and bet that the physical side will even out once everyone grows. Most of the time, the European bet wins. This is exacerbated by how few professional level academies per capita there are in the US - developing kids is to some extent a lottery, and they’re buying 1000 tickets for every 10 that we buy.

This is like 75% the way there.

Most academies in the US don’t focus on size anymore.

It’s really simpler - the best model is focusing on controlling the controllable. Teaching skill, soccer IQ, good teamwork etc is controllable. The physical side is somewhat, but the genetic component isn’t. So they just control what they can.

At the end of the day speed matters a lot at the top level. At the top levels everyone can do the technical requirements - it’s speed that separates those that keep climbing and those that don’t. Size helps, but it isn’t really a huge factor when you’re talking about a handful of inches in a sport largely played on the ground.

It's speed of play that increases at the highest levels. Not speed.
Speed of play is driven by IQ making quicker good decisions.

Not about how fast one runs.

Not sure why you assumed speed was only defined as one’s running speed. If I meant running speed I would have said running speed.

You said speed separates
Every elite level club have fast players.

Speed of play separates. Not 40 yard dash times.

The id camp my kid went to was doing timed 30 yard dashes. It said a lot about the coaching staff….

That they want metric based assessments? And they don’t want kids that

are too slow to compete?

I am sure the only thing the coaches did at the entire ID camp was time the 30yd dashes.

Some coaches at ID camps make players juggle in times tests too, or around timed obstacle courses! And time and count juggles!

Waste of time. If something is not done under pressure why do it? Let the kids scrimmage. You can pick out the top 1-2% in five minutes. Top 25% in 10 minutes. It’s not hard if you watch a lot of soccer and know what to look for.

Timing juggles seems pointless but juggling and juggling drills are definitely not. And kids need to be proficient and confident in their touch and skills to execute it under pressure.

I have kids in the 1-2 % and top 25% of your example. Both are excellent jugglers with the better one spending way more time trying to juggle well.

Judging soccer ability on juggling is a waste if time. I've seen players juggle for 5 minutes straight but consistently make the worst on field decisions. Juggling is a skill that can be mastered by anyone that dedicated time to do it but knowing how to play on the field is different. Juggling is great to improve touch skills but it doesn't equate to being a good player.

I think that’s consistent with what I said. One kid is the far better player bc of time spent on the ball, including dedicated juggling practice and working on their own and through practices and games. Other kid is one of the better jugglers on their team but is just a middling player bc of his own effort (or lack of it and interest).

I still would judge a player by juggling skills though. Means a player that puts time on the ball and can be taught decision making and execution much easier than someone who has no touch. So maybe not the best player always but more likely to have the better potential.

True. You are an educated participant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, I could not imagine what kind of soccer player Tyreek Hill or Ja Morant could have been if they played soccer instead of basketball or football yet alone 100s of others. Use who is widely considered the #1 player in the world and his similarities to an NFL WR, Mbappe.

The people here who think NFL/NBA players aren’t difference makers are, meh, I won’t insult…

Bottom line is it doesn’t matter. We have NFL and NBA and it’s not going to change. The what if approach is a moot point.

What is not is that we are not even getting close to our top athletes investing in soccer. Regardless, as previously pointed out, with the population of the US, we absolutely should be doing better.

I personally think it’s selfishness (or low IQ) on the men’s side and a lack of creativity on the offensive side. Pulisic is really our only player who plays with creativity. Clint Dempsey was actually fairly creative for being an American Forward during his time.

Elite players need to be taught unselfishness and creativity at the same time. That’s how goals come. Creating space to either collapse the defense and drop a pass or create space to get off a shot. Both need creativity. You do not see US Soccer this way but instead panic and forced shots around the box.

Oh, we really need a GK.

How many times and from how many people must you hear your foolish nba and NFL players wet dream demolished for lack of intelligence and zero substance?

Yes, Kevin Durant and and Offensive Lineman from the Cowboys can replace Pulisic and Adams

I would have love to see Patrick Mahomes, Michael Vick, Allen Iverson, Barry Sanders, Christian McCaffrey, Tom Brady, Micheal Jordan, Stephen Curry, Chris Paul, etc go through La Masia or Valdebebas from the age of 10. MJ as a striker? Allen Iverson as a 10? Who knows if they would have the foot eye qualities needed but I am sure one or two would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, I could not imagine what kind of soccer player Tyreek Hill or Ja Morant could have been if they played soccer instead of basketball or football yet alone 100s of others. Use who is widely considered the #1 player in the world and his similarities to an NFL WR, Mbappe.

The people here who think NFL/NBA players aren’t difference makers are, meh, I won’t insult…

Bottom line is it doesn’t matter. We have NFL and NBA and it’s not going to change. The what if approach is a moot point.

What is not is that we are not even getting close to our top athletes investing in soccer. Regardless, as previously pointed out, with the population of the US, we absolutely should be doing better.

I personally think it’s selfishness (or low IQ) on the men’s side and a lack of creativity on the offensive side. Pulisic is really our only player who plays with creativity. Clint Dempsey was actually fairly creative for being an American Forward during his time.

Elite players need to be taught unselfishness and creativity at the same time. That’s how goals come. Creating space to either collapse the defense and drop a pass or create space to get off a shot. Both need creativity. You do not see US Soccer this way but instead panic and forced shots around the box.

Oh, we really need a GK.

How many times and from how many people must you hear your foolish nba and NFL players wet dream demolished for lack of intelligence and zero substance?

Yes, Kevin Durant and and Offensive Lineman from the Cowboys can replace Pulisic and Adams

I would have love to see Patrick Mahomes, Michael Vick, Allen Iverson, Barry Sanders, Christian McCaffrey, Tom Brady, Micheal Jordan, Stephen Curry, Chris Paul, etc go through La Masia or Valdebebas from the age of 10. MJ as a striker? Allen Iverson as a 10? Who knows if they would have the foot eye qualities needed but I am sure one or two would.

Your mother says clean up your basement room and takeout the garbage

[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:The story that was mentioned about Pulisic is exactly the issue. In the US, we focus on the fastest and the strongest and bet that their skills will catch up. In Europe, they focus on technical ability and bet that the physical side will even out once everyone grows. Most of the time, the European bet wins. This is exacerbated by how few professional level academies per capita there are in the US - developing kids is to some extent a lottery, and they’re buying 1000 tickets for every 10 that we buy.

This is like 75% the way there.

Most academies in the US don’t focus on size anymore.

It’s really simpler - the best model is focusing on controlling the controllable. Teaching skill, soccer IQ, good teamwork etc is controllable. The physical side is somewhat, but the genetic component isn’t. So they just control what they can.

At the end of the day speed matters a lot at the top level. At the top levels everyone can do the technical requirements - it’s speed that separates those that keep climbing and those that don’t. Size helps, but it isn’t really a huge factor when you’re talking about a handful of inches in a sport largely played on the ground.

It's speed of play that increases at the highest levels. Not speed.
Speed of play is driven by IQ making quicker good decisions.

Not about how fast one runs.

Not sure why you assumed speed was only defined as one’s running speed. If I meant running speed I would have said running speed.

You said speed separates
Every elite level club have fast players.

Speed of play separates. Not 40 yard dash times.

The id camp my kid went to was doing timed 30 yard dashes. It said a lot about the coaching staff….

That they want metric based assessments? And they don’t want kids that

are too slow to compete?

I am sure the only thing the coaches did at the entire ID camp was time the 30yd dashes.

Some coaches at ID camps make players juggle in times tests too, or around timed obstacle courses! And time and count juggles!

Waste of time. If something is not done under pressure why do it? Let the kids scrimmage. You can pick out the top 1-2% in five minutes. Top 25% in 10 minutes. It’s not hard if you watch a lot of soccer and know what to look for.

Timing juggles seems pointless but juggling and juggling drills are definitely not. And kids need to be proficient and confident in their touch and skills to execute it under pressure.

I have kids in the 1-2 % and top 25% of your example. Both are excellent jugglers with the better one spending way more time trying to juggle well.

Judging soccer ability on juggling is a waste if time. I've seen players juggle for 5 minutes straight but consistently make the worst on field decisions. Juggling is a skill that can be mastered by anyone that dedicated time to do it but knowing how to play on the field is different. Juggling is great to improve touch skills but it doesn't equate to being a good player.

I think that’s consistent with what I said. One kid is the far better player bc of time spent on the ball, including dedicated juggling practice and working on their own and through practices and games. Other kid is one of the better jugglers on their team but is just a middling player bc of his own effort (or lack of it and interest).

I still would judge a player by juggling skills though. Means a player that puts time on the ball and can be taught decision making and execution much easier than someone who has no touch. So maybe not the best player always but more likely to have the better potential.

When you’re young and can juggle, you stand out. When you get older and can’t juggle, you stand out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technical skill isn't important in America. They want ' athletic strong' aka large, fast, and really aggressive over skills. The amount of parents I've talked to who are extremely frustrated with coaches just flat out saying their kid doesn't fit on their roster because they're highly technical but on the smaller side is indicative of this. If you look at who dominates in ECNL it's West Coast and Texan players who are big and just throw their bodies at people over having actual foot skills. Sure, they can all blast the ball extremely hard to the back of the net; but then we wonder why we get obliterated in international play when actually technical players absolutely shut our national team players down in both men's and women's soccer. Anyone who disagrees with this can just watch an almost 40-year-old Messi absolutely dribble circles around an entire back line of American MLS players completely past his prime as though he's just taking a leisurely walk down the field before scoring.

Here's to hoping at some point we stopped treating soccer like American football in this country.

If the “technical” kids are getting destroyed by the bigger kids, maybe they are not that technical or good.

If you don't know why a U11 team with bigger, stronger, faster early bloomers can kick and run past technical smaller kids then you probably shouldn't be commenting

Enlighten us.

You may be the only person on the entire DCUM who doesn't know the early bloomers physical advantages at younger ages

that’s not an answer.

I would take the bet on a technical team over the bigger faster kick and run team all day long.

You made the comment suggesting a thing to be true, I don’t think that thing is true. Maybe you’re using “technical” as a synonym for “sucks, but the parents think they’re amazing.” But when I think of technical…I think of accurate passes, getting split, wingers with chalk on their boots and backs on the touch line, making runs, overlaps, dummy runs, etc… those sorts of teams tend to crush the kick and run bruisers…but maybe you meant something else by technical?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technical skill isn't important in America. They want ' athletic strong' aka large, fast, and really aggressive over skills. The amount of parents I've talked to who are extremely frustrated with coaches just flat out saying their kid doesn't fit on their roster because they're highly technical but on the smaller side is indicative of this. If you look at who dominates in ECNL it's West Coast and Texan players who are big and just throw their bodies at people over having actual foot skills. Sure, they can all blast the ball extremely hard to the back of the net; but then we wonder why we get obliterated in international play when actually technical players absolutely shut our national team players down in both men's and women's soccer. Anyone who disagrees with this can just watch an almost 40-year-old Messi absolutely dribble circles around an entire back line of American MLS players completely past his prime as though he's just taking a leisurely walk down the field before scoring.

Here's to hoping at some point we stopped treating soccer like American football in this country.

If the “technical” kids are getting destroyed by the bigger kids, maybe they are not that technical or good.

If you don't know why a U11 team with bigger, stronger, faster early bloomers can kick and run past technical smaller kids then you probably shouldn't be commenting

Enlighten us.

You may be the only person on the entire DCUM who doesn't know the early bloomers physical advantages at younger ages

that’s not an answer.

I would take the bet on a technical team over the bigger faster kick and run team all day long.

You made the comment suggesting a thing to be true, I don’t think that thing is true. Maybe you’re using “technical” as a synonym for “sucks, but the parents think they’re amazing.” But when I think of technical…I think of accurate passes, getting split, wingers with chalk on their boots and backs on the touch line, making runs, overlaps, dummy runs, etc… those sorts of teams tend to crush the kick and run bruisers…but maybe you meant something else by technical?

You're practicing romanticism

We all see and know in younger age groups, teams with bigger, faster, stronger early bloomers have advantage to winning.
This isn't about who has better style of play or better development approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Technical skill isn't important in America. They want ' athletic strong' aka large, fast, and really aggressive over skills. The amount of parents I've talked to who are extremely frustrated with coaches just flat out saying their kid doesn't fit on their roster because they're highly technical but on the smaller side is indicative of this. If you look at who dominates in ECNL it's West Coast and Texan players who are big and just throw their bodies at people over having actual foot skills. Sure, they can all blast the ball extremely hard to the back of the net; but then we wonder why we get obliterated in international play when actually technical players absolutely shut our national team players down in both men's and women's soccer. Anyone who disagrees with this can just watch an almost 40-year-old Messi absolutely dribble circles around an entire back line of American MLS players completely past his prime as though he's just taking a leisurely walk down the field before scoring.

Here's to hoping at some point we stopped treating soccer like American football in this country.

If the “technical” kids are getting destroyed by the bigger kids, maybe they are not that technical or good.

If you don't know why a U11 team with bigger, stronger, faster early bloomers can kick and run past technical smaller kids then you probably shouldn't be commenting

Enlighten us.

You may be the only person on the entire DCUM who doesn't know the early bloomers physical advantages at younger ages

that’s not an answer.

I would take the bet on a technical team over the bigger faster kick and run team all day long.

You made the comment suggesting a thing to be true, I don’t think that thing is true. Maybe you’re using “technical” as a synonym for “sucks, but the parents think they’re amazing.” But when I think of technical…I think of accurate passes, getting split, wingers with chalk on their boots and backs on the touch line, making runs, overlaps, dummy runs, etc… those sorts of teams tend to crush the kick and run bruisers…but maybe you meant something else by technical?

Technical means players on the touchline? What does technique have to do with shape? Kick and run teams usually play with wingers, right?