Speed, agility, coordination, quickness - yes, if the best athletes in the US played soccer, we would have a dominate World team. Not talking about Clayton Kershaw and Tom Brady but the best athletes---LeBron James, Bo Jackson, Jackie Robinson, Deion Sanders played soccer their whole lives, hell yea we would dominate. It might change if the money is there....

Anonymous wrote:Hahaha at all the long responses.

If all of you stopped paying for your snowflakes to play.....



Maybe there would be a different approach

Sorry, but there just isn't the soccer cultural literacy in this nation to have a different approach.

Hahaha at all the long responses.

If all of you stopped paying for your snowflakes to play.....



Maybe there would be a different approach

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And I agree with poster that said travel system model sucks.

22.5 million kids in US play soccer. More than any other sport. Parents are no longer wanting to put kids in tackle football. The pool of athletes is there. He US can't train them because they still don't have a great knowledge ---and they use a shitty model that nobody else in the World uses.

It's also more than any other country right? And by a lot I assume? If true something is definitely not working.

Yep. Second only to China.

I noticed larger early teens are playing now. These kids used to go out for football, but more and more parents no longer want their kids to do this with head injury stats.

The thing not working is our model of forming separate teams beginning at 8. The travel model doesn't work. We also still don't select on the same traits that work for FIFA players. Coaches here are pretty bad at spotting subtlety and potential. They completely miss the nuances.

Anonymous wrote:

And I agree with poster that said travel system model sucks.

22.5 million kids in US play soccer. More than any other sport. Parents are no longer wanting to put kids in tackle football. The pool of athletes is there. He US can't train them because they still don't have a great knowledge ---and they use a shitty model that nobody else in the World uses.

It's also more than any other country right? And by a lot I assume? If true something is definitely not working.

^^^

In football the ball is carried, it is either handed off or passed forward but it is carried. To be effective at carrying the football requires speed, elusiveness and power. But few players have all three but they have two of the three. You are born with the ultimate potential of speed. You are born with being elusiveness. And ANYONE can add power.

In order to stop the carrier requires size speed and strength and agility in order to physically subdue the ball carrier.

Most off season NFL players work on their physical attributes. Very little time is spent on the skills because, quite frankly, there are few of them to work on. Time is better spent perfecting knowledge of the game via film than it is spent perfecting "skills". Football is simply a series of set pieces that are rehearsed over and over until the timing is right. But the success of the set piece is totally reliant upon picking the right set piece against the oppositions set defense.

Absolutely none of that is relevant to soccer. None of it can predict who would or wouldn't be an elite soccer player.

I doubt we hear this argument in England where they are certain that if only their Rugby players would choose soccer that they would finally win the World Clup again.

asksoccernova wrote:Would we develop more elite golfers if all of the greatest US athletes chose golf?

Not necessarily. They would still have to become a great golfer in addition to becoming a great athlete. You still have to become a great golfer to be a great golfer.

There are only so many hours in the day - how many hours do you devote to improving pure athleticism and how many to improving your skills?

Of course we would! Are you saying if every kid practiced golf as a kid, none of the new kids would become elite????? Doesn't make any sense.

asksoccernova wrote:In soccer, the reason for this is that the ball moves faster than the players - the greatest sprinter cannot outrun a soccer ball on a sprint. The greatest endurance athlete cannot outrun a soccer ball over 90 minutes. The greatest high jumper cannot jump higher than a ball can be kicked. Athleticism will help with some types of game situations, but your skill on the ball will have more of an effect on the outcome. There are 22 players on the field and only 1 ball, so a lot of the game is about timing, team shape, principles of play such as width, support, coordinated movements, and transitions. These elements of team play have very little to do with individual athleticism. In fact, one strategy when playing against athletic players that want to pressure is to wear them out by passing the ball around the field and make them chase it all over the place.

So you are saying in football, basketball, baseball, etc., the ball moves slower than the person? All of these sports also have one ball and a lot of the game is about timing, team shape, principles of play such as width, support, coordinated movements, and transitions. Football even has the exact same 22 to 1 ratio.

In this country, most people don't watch soccer on tv. Making it pro in basketball, football, or baseball means big bucks even at the league minimum. Not so with soccer. True, in general, baseball players probably wouldn't make good soccer players, but to say that not a single one of them, if they had trained in soccer their whole lives, wouldn't be an elite soccer player is idiotic. Football would have more that could have been elites in soccer and basketball would have quite a few. I'm sure there would even be some in these sports who maybe went to college, but didn't turn pro, who maybe soccer would have been their sports if they would have trained in it as a kid. Of course it's not true to say that only those who picked and stuck with soccer as a kid could be any good at soccer.

Blah blah blah touches. No big club perfects that in a player. They are so team focused. They do not perfect a players touch in these big factories. They aren't doing drills over and over that perfect this.

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the size of the US is a detriment. Same thing with China. With the smaller countries, very good youth players can easily play against other very good youth players. Here, they're spread out so far that they can't really compete against each other.

Academy is trying to change that by gathering together the best players but I think the jury is still out on whether Academy is a good thing or a mediocre thing. I personally am not a huge fan of Academy games; the style of play is so selfish - kids aren't rewarded for good team play and it's often an ugly style of soccer. But at least they are trying to gather together the best youth players.

Academy sucks. The best players in America leave and start training abroad.

CRyuff said it's not how much you hustle or run around in a game--it's being in the right place at the right moment that matters.

The truly great limit their running around. It's methodical. I saw Messi live in Barcelona and he walks a lot of the game--but when it matters he is so quick you miss him.

We mistake activity with efficiency in this country. We blabber on about some kids hustle when he accomplishes absolutely zero in a game. The Europeans don't make that mistake.

I actually think the size of the US is a detriment. Same thing with China. With the smaller countries, very good youth players can easily play against other very good youth players. Here, they're spread out so far that they can't really compete against each other.

Academy is trying to change that by gathering together the best players but I think the jury is still out on whether Academy is a good thing or a mediocre thing. I personally am not a huge fan of Academy games; the style of play is so selfish - kids aren't rewarded for good team play and it's often an ugly style of soccer. But at least they are trying to gather together the best youth players.

Would we develop more elite golfers if all of the greatest US athletes chose golf?

Not necessarily. They would still have to become a great golfer in addition to becoming a great athlete. You still have to become a great golfer to be a great golfer.

There are only so many hours in the day - how many hours do you devote to improving pure athleticism and how many to improving your skills?

Bottom line is if you have average skills, no amount of athleticism can make up for that.

Same with soccer - you can be incredibly athletic, but you still have to develop the skills of a great soccer player to be a great soccer player. And you cannot do this without spending more time with the ball (not in the weight room or on the track)


In soccer, the reason for this is that the ball moves faster than the players - the greatest sprinter cannot outrun a soccer ball on a sprint. The greatest endurance athlete cannot outrun a soccer ball over 90 minutes. The greatest high jumper cannot jump higher than a ball can be kicked. Athleticism will help with some types of game situations, but your skill on the ball will have more of an effect on the outcome. There are 22 players on the field and only 1 ball, so a lot of the game is about timing, team shape, principles of play such as width, support, coordinated movements, and transitions. These elements of team play have very little to do with individual athleticism. In fact, one strategy when playing against athletic players that want to pressure is to wear them out by passing the ball around the field and make them chase it all over the place.

Most of the game is played without you having the ball at your foot - and when you do get it, you only play with 1-2 touches most of the time. The thousands of hours working on your touch determine how good those 1-2 touches are. NO amount of time training athletic qualities without a soccer ball at your feet will improve the quality of those touches. You need to train with a ball.

Anonymous wrote:They would still suck.

We don't train properly and the youth soccer system/model sucks.

Soccer requires high technical footskill and tactical play. When played properly, it's less dependent on psychical size.

In general (a few exceptions) tall men aren't as good because a low center of gravity works best. Imbramovich and Ronaldo 6footers--but 5'8-5'11. Pele was 5'8"--Cruyff was 5'11". Neymar Jr is 5'9". Maradona and Messi tiny. 5'11" is typical.

And I agree with poster that said travel system model sucks.

22.5 million kids in US play soccer. More than any other sport. Parents are no longer wanting to put kids in tackle football. The pool of athletes is there. He US can't train them because they still don't have a great knowledge ---and they use a shitty model that nobody else in the World uses.

They would still suck.

We don't train properly and the youth soccer system/model sucks.

Soccer requires high technical footskill and tactical play. When played properly, it's less dependent on psychical size.

In general (a few exceptions) tall men aren't as good because a low center of gravity works best. Imbramovich and Ronaldo 6footers--but 5'8-5'11. Pele was 5'8"--Cruyff was 5'11". Neymar Jr is 5'9". Maradona and Messi tiny. 5'11" is typical.

It's all about how much money you can spend obviously