Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Third grade, really? Who cares.

Anyone interested in seeing the U.S. be competitive in world soccer in 10 years should care. The question is --- if NOVA is rich in talent relative to the rest of the United States, yet none of our U9 teams can hold a candle to Barcelona U9, why is that?

Do "we" in the U.S. have a better method? Is there any age group at which we finally catch up to the real soccer powers of the world? If not, why aren't we changing our approach?

Even if everything else were equal, which it's not of course, why on earth would you expect a local travel club, drawing from a tiny subset of DC area residents to rival Barcelona's U9 team which presumably contains all the best talent from the entire Bareclona region?

If DCU had a U9 team, you might reasonably ask why it wasn't as good as the Barcelona team, if indeed it were not. But DCU does not have a U9 team - and that is at least part of your answer. Not just that there is no single team in this area which consolidates all of the talent in one place, but also that our local professional team makes no attempt to invest in the development of kids at that age, nor even much effort at any age. In fact our local team probably actively hinders development by not only failinmg to provide adequate coaching and resources, but also preventing motivated kids from seeking such coaching elsewhere.

There are other reasons too - I place more credence in the cultural problem than "the best athletes play something else" problem. For the parent who said "my kid plays with friends outside school", I would respond "Sure. How often?". In Spain the kids will play before school, mid-morning, at lunch time and after school. When they go for play dates they will play soccer - and at the weekend they will play soccer. They will play with their friends, with their families and with strangers. The kids that are keen probably play 30-40 hours a week. Not organized club training - just kicking a ball around because that is what they like doing.

That is not possible here. Not least because most of our kids have to be driven to somewhere they can play instead of just running out to join the neighborhood game on whatever scrap of grass or bare earth it is always taking place.

Anonymous wrote:Hasn’t it proven that heading the ball below U12 really bad and can cause concussions/brain damage? The kids in the video are 8 years old and are constantly heading the ball.

No good.

This the reason we will catch up in this country instead—more brain cells left when they are older.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids don’t live, breath, and sleep soccer here. They do not watch pro games every weekend and dissect what happened, could’ve happened, and hoped to have happened with their buddies, friends, and schoolmates in school or at the park.

Let alone have them play pick up games at the park, at school recess (LOL), in THE STREET!!!!

you can’t get to where others are by not imitating them. Sorry, the US will never be a powerhouse in soccer per se.

Real talented American squad needs early prepubescent teenagers to have been scouted, picked, and ultimately have (and their parents too) the balls to jump over the pond into the old continent.

This. The passion and die-hard fandom just isn't here. My kid has played soccer for years. He's pretty good and quite athletic. But he dreams of playing in the NFL and lives and dies NFL stats. Many of his teammates and friends are the same.

I've lived in Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico. The die-hard, street-play, obsessive fandom is real there.

+1

We're Argentinean and our boys are pretty good at soccer but the passion is definitely death here...

Look, you can believe a team of 11 Lebrons would dominate the world, but that does not flush out.

The person above mentioned "obsessive fandom" in their post. If you replace that with "knowledgeable support" in the community at a young age, it would be the same thing I am saying.

For the guy that said, why isn't anyone investing. Well, they are. You just need a group of people willing to do it the right way, starting at a young age.

https://www.theringer.com/2021/1/7/22208495/brenden-aaronson-philadelphia-union-red-bull-salzburg-mls

Anonymous wrote:Kids don’t live, breath, and sleep soccer here. They do not watch pro games every weekend and dissect what happened, could’ve happened, and hoped to have happened with their buddies, friends, and schoolmates in school or at the park.

Let alone have them play pick up games at the park, at school recess (LOL), in THE STREET!!!!

you can’t get to where others are by not imitating them. Sorry, the US will never be a powerhouse in soccer per se.

Real talented American squad needs early prepubescent teenagers to have been scouted, picked, and ultimately have (and their parents too) the balls to jump over the pond into the old continent.

This. The passion and die-hard fandom just isn't here. My kid has played soccer for years. He's pretty good and quite athletic. But he dreams of playing in the NFL and lives and dies NFL stats. Many of his teammates and friends are the same.

I've lived in Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico. The die-hard, street-play, obsessive fandom is real there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans are very focused on winning at young ages and developing physicality over technique. So they choose tactics that might not be best for the young players in the long run.

I think Americans would be very receptive to a development academy or system that got their young players playing like Barcelona U9. Not to mention, it would quickly result in winning -- does anyone think that their ECNL/NCLS/WTFever club team would seriously compete with Barcelona U9, or Malaga, or any club whose games you can watch from that tournament?

I get the sense (not having researched it myself) that the kids who play in the European club youth teams are scouted and recruited, and they don't pay (much) to play. By constrast, here it's the pretty good / mediocre rich kids who are tapped-out and over-trained to their maximum potential who get all the attention showered on them at young ages (because their parents are forking over $$$), but as they develop they hit their natural God-given limits and remain mediocre. I get that argument.

But why isn't that true for basketball, baseball, hockey, football, and other sports? I mean, money is always a factor, but nonetheless truly talented kids are identified and provided with a path to develop and shine that doesn't cost a fortune. Why is is that soccer would be uniquely susceptible to this sort of detrimental influence from wealthy, mediocre players?

In Barcelona those are the best athletes in the USA our best athletes never touch a soccer ball simple facts.

OK - I guess that’s about as good as an explanation as I’ve seen ... that it all comes down to just a very small number of generic “good natural athletes” and we simply have too few of ours playing soccer in the U.S.

It’s strange though, because most pro soccer players don’t look like obvious “natural athletes” ... they are fit and extremely skilled, but few of them look like they would be the type of boys/men who would excel at basketball or football. In other words, if NFL-style football was popular in Europe, and basketball was equally popular in Europe as it is in the U.S. (it’s already popular in the EU, but let’s say it became equally popular) ... would those great soccer players really be the type of kids who played America football or basketball? I don’t know ... maybe.

I’d like to think that’s it’s not simply a matter of us squandering our finite number of “great natural athletes” on other sports, and that we have plenty of raw natural athletic talented that just isn’t being put to good use, but maybe it is just that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans are very focused on winning at young ages and developing physicality over technique. So they choose tactics that might not be best for the young players in the long run.

I think Americans would be very receptive to a development academy or system that got their young players playing like Barcelona U9. Not to mention, it would quickly result in winning -- does anyone think that their ECNL/NCLS/WTFever club team would seriously compete with Barcelona U9, or Malaga, or any club whose games you can watch from that tournament?

I get the sense (not having researched it myself) that the kids who play in the European club youth teams are scouted and recruited, and they don't pay (much) to play. By constrast, here it's the pretty good / mediocre rich kids who are tapped-out and over-trained to their maximum potential who get all the attention showered on them at young ages (because their parents are forking over $$$), but as they develop they hit their natural God-given limits and remain mediocre. I get that argument.

But why isn't that true for basketball, baseball, hockey, football, and other sports? I mean, money is always a factor, but nonetheless truly talented kids are identified and provided with a path to develop and shine that doesn't cost a fortune. Why is is that soccer would be uniquely susceptible to this sort of detrimental influence from wealthy, mediocre players?

In Barcelona those are the best athletes in the USA our best athletes never touch a soccer ball simple facts.

But that’s why I focused on Barcelona U9 versus our “elite” U9 teams. The European does get “immediate” results — Barcelona U9 (and probably most of the teams they beat in that Iberian U9 tournament) would likely mop the floor with DC-Metro’s “best” teams.

Yes, that's why coaching education and parent education is the big issue I see. You are looking at the results of previous years of experiences in those kids' lives.

Those kids were playing and experiencing a completely different environment in which more support was knowledgeable about the game at hand. Collectively, this allowed for far greater skill acquisition in the larger group to allow exceptional talent to be identified.

It's not a money game as much smaller and poor countries have far better talent. Why? More people when the talent was little actually had the knowledge to impart on them when they were very little.

I think many parents are concerned about skill acquisition. I know I certainly am. Skill acquisition doesn’t imply playing poorly as a team — again, Barcelona U9 have better skills and would beat any of our DC-Metro U9 teams.

You may care and I may care, but there are far more that do not have the experience or knowledge. Do not have the time or energy. Look at all the posts in this forum. They don't care about development and they are proud of it. The coaching is substandard as they do not have the knowledge or experiences to impart much to younger players before U9. They don't have the humility to not destroy for the sake of a little $20 bobble.

Until most people actually care about skill acquisition and development beyond score lines, it just will be too big of a hurdle. I'm sure you have seen U13 kids in this area that still have trouble receiving a ball on the "elite" level. The issue is just that basic.

Take the mid Atlantic region which is roughly same population as Spain. Now take the very top 100 or even 1000 athletes in that region. How many of those top athletes in the mid Atlantic are playing soccer? Maybe 25%? In Spain it’s 90%. That’s why the US will never achieve the same level of soccer because the majority of super athletes are playing basketball, football.

Anonymous wrote:I think it comes down to a few big things. Pay-to-play is a problem, but not necessarily a hindrance. If used correctly, it could accelerate the process. But, I think the bigger issues are parental education and coaching education at the younger ages. I'm sure more issues play a factor. If ever addressed in a meaningful way, those two would likely lead to far greater outcomes for a lot of kids in this country. Not just professional play, but actual knowledge that will be useful for the next generation.

Yes, the amount of "Free Play" is far lower, but the general knowledge is so lacking in the supporting groups(parents and coaches) that everything else becomes cumbersome to resolve. Far too many egos and not enough humility. Way too attached to immediate results and not enough attention to future experiences.

But that’s why I focused on Barcelona U9 versus our “elite” U9 teams. The European does get “immediate” results — Barcelona U9 (and probably most of the teams they beat in that Iberian U9 tournament) would likely mop the floor with DC-Metro’s “best” teams.

just at the younger ages, more parents would be concerned with skill acquisition and less about bragging rights, that would be a seismic culture shift enough to see real gains. I really think if they(parents and coaches) are detached enough until the kids are playing 11 vs. 11, it would be amazing. Then, the coaching has less pressure and can spend the best years on the most important part. Imparting a desire, environment, and aptitude for technique/skill mastery. The coaches also will need to have a strong desire to engage in good coaching practices adhered to by all who choose to participate.

I think many parents are concerned about skill acquisition. I know I certainly am. Skill acquisition doesn’t imply playing poorly as a team — again, Barcelona U9 have better skills and would beat any of our DC-Metro U9 teams.

Unfortunately, the American sports culture really does hone its targets on glory now means glory later. Every youth sports system in the country has it. It's just for this sport and a few others. It really is counter-productive. In other sports, a lot of athleticism and rote drilling can succeed. Just not in this game.

Again though, Barcelona has “glory now” (they easily surpass our best teams at U9) and they also have glory later (they easily beat our best MLS teams, or the Spanish national team easily beats USA). It’s not an either/or choice between being good at U9 and being good later. They are better at every age, starting from U9 and going all the way up to the national team. We have 6x the population of Spain and 30x the population of Portugal. Why can’t we get our act together?

All I can do as a parent is look for a team around here that is taking the approach that Barcelona U9 is taking, and support them with my dollars. That’s all any of us parents can do. But why hasn’t any such entity stepped in to fill that demand?

Anonymous wrote:Well, for one, they're taking the best kids and practicing all the time against the best kids. We spread things out and have a few good kids across many teams in this area. Games are one thing, but practicing against the best every day/week is what brings the overall talent level up, not practicing against a couple very good. See any of the threads/arguments against talent dilution in the DC area. The problem with expansion isn't more clubs playing each other (which is nice) - it's that it dilutes the talent pool where good goes against good for a 90 minute training session 3-4 times/week. That has a much bigger impact on player development than a single 90 minute game that your top players get 60-75 minutes, sometimes against less skilled opposition.

Good point. However, when you look at the Mid-Atlantic Region (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Washington, D.C., Virginia and West Virginia) we have roughly the same population as Spain (and far more people than Portugal or Netherlands). So, why aren't we "taking the best kids and practicing against the best kids" in the same way they are? It's not that complicated. An area like DC-Metro is going to have enough "best kids" to probably field several teams; same with Northern NJ and other densely populated areas; more sparsely populated areas might only have a couple of "best kid" teams. But if Spain can do it, we should be able to do it, at least regionally, which should be comparable.

The problem as I see it with all of our "elite" leagues is that no one is in charge -- no one makes a rational system where the "best" kids will play in this league, but then we'll have these second and third level leagues to give all kids a chance to play (and even to move up, if they develop). So we end up with "elite" leagues where you're expected to travel to another state, but the competition that you'll play in that other state is usually no better than competition that you can find 30 minutes away. Because nobody seems willing or able to agree to work together to make U.S. soccer better. Where is MLS in all of this? Why aren't they developing young kids from an early age the way EU clubs are doing? Or at least why aren't they trying to use their influence/power to mediate these sorts of issues among U.S. youth soccer?

Basketball for one does this well with their AAU model. This model is actually much more similar to the euro system if you equate the sponsoring shoe companies (basketball) to the sponsoring club (euro soccer). Those elite teams form early, talent plays early against other talent, and the best teams are typically sponsored by a Nike/Adidas and costs are much more minimal. But ultimately, those kids are practicing against other elite kids day in/day out. The travel is relatively insane for these top clubs at a young age, but much of those costs are covered at the higher levels of AAU.

That's interesting. I didn't even really know about AAU (not a big basketball fan) ... I just assumed that the main track for basketball players was high school --> NCAA college --> NBA.

I think it comes down to a few big things. Pay-to-play is a problem, but not necessarily a hindrance. If used correctly, it could accelerate the process. But, I think the bigger issues are parental education and coaching education at the younger ages. I'm sure more issues play a factor. If ever addressed in a meaningful way, those two would likely lead to far greater outcomes for a lot of kids in this country. Not just professional play, but actual knowledge that will be useful for the next generation.

Yes, the amount of "Free Play" is far lower, but the general knowledge is so lacking in the supporting groups(parents and coaches) that everything else becomes cumbersome to resolve. Far too many egos and not enough humility. Way too attached to immediate results and not enough attention to future experiences.

If just at the younger ages, more parents would be concerned with skill acquisition and less about bragging rights, that would be a seismic culture shift enough to see real gains. I really think if they(parents and coaches) are detached enough until the kids are playing 11 vs. 11, it would be amazing. Then, the coaching has less pressure and can spend the best years on the most important part. Imparting a desire, environment, and aptitude for technique/skill mastery. The coaches also will need to have a strong desire to engage in good coaching practices adhered to by all who choose to participate.

Unfortunately, the American sports culture really does hone its targets on glory now means glory later. Every youth sports system in the country has it. It's just for this sport and a few others. It really is counter-productive. In other sports, a lot of athleticism and rote drilling can succeed. Just not in this game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans are very focused on winning at young ages and developing physicality over technique. So they choose tactics that might not be best for the young players in the long run.

I think Americans would be very receptive to a development academy or system that got their young players playing like Barcelona U9. Not to mention, it would quickly result in winning -- does anyone think that their ECNL/NCLS/WTFever club team would seriously compete with Barcelona U9, or Malaga, or any club whose games you can watch from that tournament?

I get the sense (not having researched it myself) that the kids who play in the European club youth teams are scouted and recruited, and they don't pay (much) to play. By constrast, here it's the pretty good / mediocre rich kids who are tapped-out and over-trained to their maximum potential who get all the attention showered on them at young ages (because their parents are forking over $$$), but as they develop they hit their natural God-given limits and remain mediocre. I get that argument.

But why isn't that true for basketball, baseball, hockey, football, and other sports? I mean, money is always a factor, but nonetheless truly talented kids are identified and provided with a path to develop and shine that doesn't cost a fortune. Why is is that soccer would be uniquely susceptible to this sort of detrimental influence from wealthy, mediocre players?

Well, for one, they're taking the best kids and practicing all the time against the best kids. We spread things out and have a few good kids across many teams in this area. Games are one thing, but practicing against the best every day/week is what brings the overall talent level up, not practicing against a couple very good. See any of the threads/arguments against talent dilution in the DC area. The problem with expansion isn't more clubs playing each other (which is nice) - it's that it dilutes the talent pool where good goes against good for a 90 minute training session 3-4 times/week. That has a much bigger impact on player development than a single 90 minute game that your top players get 60-75 minutes, sometimes against less skilled opposition.

Basketball for one does this well with their AAU model. This model is actually much more similar to the euro system if you equate the sponsoring shoe companies (basketball) to the sponsoring club (euro soccer). Those elite teams form early, talent plays early against other talent, and the best teams are typically sponsored by a Nike/Adidas and costs are much more minimal. But ultimately, those kids are practicing against other elite kids day in/day out. The travel is relatively insane for these top clubs at a young age, but much of those costs are covered at the higher levels of AAU.

Anonymous wrote:Americans are very focused on winning at young ages and developing physicality over technique. So they choose tactics that might not be best for the young players in the long run.

I think Americans would be very receptive to a development academy or system that got their young players playing like Barcelona U9. Not to mention, it would quickly result in winning -- does anyone think that their ECNL/NCLS/WTFever club team would seriously compete with Barcelona U9, or Malaga, or any club whose games you can watch from that tournament?

I get the sense (not having researched it myself) that the kids who play in the European club youth teams are scouted and recruited, and they don't pay (much) to play. By constrast, here it's the pretty good / mediocre rich kids who are tapped-out and over-trained to their maximum potential who get all the attention showered on them at young ages (because their parents are forking over $$$), but as they develop they hit their natural God-given limits and remain mediocre. I get that argument.

But why isn't that true for basketball, baseball, hockey, football, and other sports? I mean, money is always a factor, but nonetheless truly talented kids are identified and provided with a path to develop and shine that doesn't cost a fortune. Why is is that soccer would be uniquely susceptible to this sort of detrimental influence from wealthy, mediocre players?

FCV 09B can beat them. Oh wait.