It’s not about wanting to be like Europe. It’s about trying to take things that they are doing well, and seeing how we can translate them over to improve the game here. Should we grow comfortable because we’re rolling teams? No, you should always seek improvement. If you are copying something that is done well for your players’ benefit, what’s wrong with that? It’s as if people think our amazing women are not capable of more, and they certainly are. It shouldn’t take an epic failure down the road for people to be open to improvement.

Us Women handled Sweden last night. 3-0 after 30 minutes then they started subbing and taking it easy. Completely dominated the first half. Why do we want to be more like Europe again?

"The biggest threat to US Women's Soccer Dominance: European Superclubs"

The article makes the point that many of the European giants (Barca, Juventus, PSG, Bayern, now Real Madrid) are also now increasingly investing in their women's teams. Because of the enormous financial resources of those clubs, this gives them a huge advantage over the independent women's only teams in the NWSL. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-biggest-threat-to-u-s-womens-soccer-dominance-the-european-superclubs-11560420003

I have a theory. I think Europe as a whole (Scandinavian countries excepted) is at least a generation or two behind America when it comes to girl's equality - especially in sports. The iconic 1999 USWNT's world cup inspired a generation here - but it was a generation that was already playing. It may have awoken a generation in Europe. I say that because they shattered the stereotype that there was some kind of a conflict between being athletic and being feminine. It made a difference that so many on that team were not only fantastic soccer players - they were also drop dead gorgeous. So I think there's a whole generation of European soccer-dads whose sisters were highly discouraged from playing for fear of turning into a "tom boy", who now can't wait to get their daughters involved in the sport. And now that those countries all have their own female heroes and role models to look up to, that process is only accelerating. Those superclubs aren't getting into women's football to spur change. Their involvement reflects the change that is already happening.

That's all just a theory, but I'd love to see some stats on the changes in participation #s for girls playing football over the last 30 years in countries like Spain, England, and France.

Other random thought. Title IX gets a lot of credit for driving America's global success in women's sports - and rightly so - but it's important to remember that we were a country that wanted Title IX. It's not like it was controversial when passed. We were already a country that believed girls and women ought to have the same opportunities - in sports and in life - as their male counterparts.

Anonymous wrote:We just won the World Cup. Again. Why so many Debbie downers here? It shows that a team does not have to play “Euro style” to win. There is no “one” right way to play soccer. There are some wrong ways, but clearly the US women aren’t playing wrong, else we wouldn’t be the most successful country ever at women’s soccer.

This forum doesn’t like logic. Saying there’s no right way to play soccer is crazy in these parts.

We just won the World Cup. Again. Why so many Debbie downers here? It shows that a team does not have to play “Euro style” to win. There is no “one” right way to play soccer. There are some wrong ways, but clearly the US women aren’t playing wrong, else we wouldn’t be the most successful country ever at women’s soccer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My DC played u12 in Europe this summer. In some countries, offsides is not played until u12 and throw-ins are not done until u12 either. The focus is different - make the game more organic and fluid. Fewer whistles, fewer rules, keep the ball at kids' feet and get them touches and thinking about making runs and playing into space....

How about primarily 7v7 or 9v9 until U17 except for few big competitions a year? Another tidbit from girls soccer in Europe. Results secondary to development. Less games vs. training. Allowing players to play creatively and have fun doing so.

That sounds like fun, small sided play, and fewer games. You're trying to encourage more kids to play right? The less games, more training is a US soccer mandate that doesn't work in our culture.

Anonymous wrote:Most importantly, the professional clubs subsidize the youth not the other way around. And monetization for these clubs (and their investors) via development of youth players not from milking families in volume.

Nice idea, but flawed. On the women's side, these clubs are struggling to keep their heads above water. Look at Spirit, they jettisoned their academy because it is a boat anchor in the current economic situation they face.

Anonymous wrote:

-Signed parent of youth players in both boys and girls youth soccer with DA and ECNL experience.

Thanks for the signature. It adds credibility to your post.

Thanks for the snark.

The boys and girls I saw playing in Europe had plenty of fun - your expertise aside. Training to game ratio is important if the goal is development. But if we want more cheap plastic trophies and medals, lets keep adding leagues, cups and championships so that everyone has one.

The reason clubs struggle is that there is no incentive for investors to get involved and no way to monetize development of players and clubs. Switch the model and you may see some big changes.

Maybe you didn't read my post. I don't think the high fraction of training/small sided game model works in our culture. What works in Europe doesn't necessarily work here. Furthermore, the training to game ratio theory doesn't really describe the mechanism. What works development wise is touches. This is why the street soccer culture works so well. The training/game ratio is these cultures is zero. I don't think any changes you can think of will work in a broad sense until you have a soccer culture in which little kids want to play in a low structure environment on their own. That one will take a long time here, perhaps never.

I agree with the street soccer part of this response. In fact, there should be a futsal hard court built into almost every basketball court in the US.

However, what is happening in Europe is not just street soccer and small-sided games so that comment is misleading. The focus in Europe is development of technical and tactical and not just putting 11-year olds on a full-sized field and then play direct soccer to the biggest and fastest kids, or running 30 minutes of foot skill work that very few players know how to use in games at the appropriate times. That "style" is an American thing that is the lazy way of winning games. This doesn't develop soccer players, it just makes life much easier for coaches and trainers.

What do you suggest?

DP. I think it starts with what colleges and US Soccer recruit for. The lower levels are doing what will make their players recruitable. Even though the change will only be successful when it permeates the grass roots level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My DC played u12 in Europe this summer. In some countries, offsides is not played until u12 and throw-ins are not done until u12 either. The focus is different - make the game more organic and fluid. Fewer whistles, fewer rules, keep the ball at kids' feet and get them touches and thinking about making runs and playing into space....

How about primarily 7v7 or 9v9 until U17 except for few big competitions a year? Another tidbit from girls soccer in Europe. Results secondary to development. Less games vs. training. Allowing players to play creatively and have fun doing so.

That sounds like fun, small sided play, and fewer games. You're trying to encourage more kids to play right? The less games, more training is a US soccer mandate that doesn't work in our culture.

Anonymous wrote:Most importantly, the professional clubs subsidize the youth not the other way around. And monetization for these clubs (and their investors) via development of youth players not from milking families in volume.

Nice idea, but flawed. On the women's side, these clubs are struggling to keep their heads above water. Look at Spirit, they jettisoned their academy because it is a boat anchor in the current economic situation they face.

Anonymous wrote:

-Signed parent of youth players in both boys and girls youth soccer with DA and ECNL experience.

Thanks for the signature. It adds credibility to your post.

Thanks for the snark.

The boys and girls I saw playing in Europe had plenty of fun - your expertise aside. Training to game ratio is important if the goal is development. But if we want more cheap plastic trophies and medals, lets keep adding leagues, cups and championships so that everyone has one.

The reason clubs struggle is that there is no incentive for investors to get involved and no way to monetize development of players and clubs. Switch the model and you may see some big changes.

Maybe you didn't read my post. I don't think the high fraction of training/small sided game model works in our culture. What works in Europe doesn't necessarily work here. Furthermore, the training to game ratio theory doesn't really describe the mechanism. What works development wise is touches. This is why the street soccer culture works so well. The training/game ratio is these cultures is zero. I don't think any changes you can think of will work in a broad sense until you have a soccer culture in which little kids want to play in a low structure environment on their own. That one will take a long time here, perhaps never.

I agree with the street soccer part of this response. In fact, there should be a futsal hard court built into almost every basketball court in the US.

However, what is happening in Europe is not just street soccer and small-sided games so that comment is misleading. The focus in Europe is development of technical and tactical and not just putting 11-year olds on a full-sized field and then play direct soccer to the biggest and fastest kids, or running 30 minutes of foot skill work that very few players know how to use in games at the appropriate times. That "style" is an American thing that is the lazy way of winning games. This doesn't develop soccer players, it just makes life much easier for coaches and trainers.

What do you suggest?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My DC played u12 in Europe this summer. In some countries, offsides is not played until u12 and throw-ins are not done until u12 either. The focus is different - make the game more organic and fluid. Fewer whistles, fewer rules, keep the ball at kids' feet and get them touches and thinking about making runs and playing into space....

How about primarily 7v7 or 9v9 until U17 except for few big competitions a year? Another tidbit from girls soccer in Europe. Results secondary to development. Less games vs. training. Allowing players to play creatively and have fun doing so.

That sounds like fun, small sided play, and fewer games. You're trying to encourage more kids to play right? The less games, more training is a US soccer mandate that doesn't work in our culture.

Anonymous wrote:Most importantly, the professional clubs subsidize the youth not the other way around. And monetization for these clubs (and their investors) via development of youth players not from milking families in volume.

Nice idea, but flawed. On the women's side, these clubs are struggling to keep their heads above water. Look at Spirit, they jettisoned their academy because it is a boat anchor in the current economic situation they face.

Anonymous wrote:

-Signed parent of youth players in both boys and girls youth soccer with DA and ECNL experience.

Thanks for the signature. It adds credibility to your post.

Thanks for the snark.

The boys and girls I saw playing in Europe had plenty of fun - your expertise aside. Training to game ratio is important if the goal is development. But if we want more cheap plastic trophies and medals, lets keep adding leagues, cups and championships so that everyone has one.

The reason clubs struggle is that there is no incentive for investors to get involved and no way to monetize development of players and clubs. Switch the model and you may see some big changes.

Maybe you didn't read my post. I don't think the high fraction of training/small sided game model works in our culture. What works in Europe doesn't necessarily work here. Furthermore, the training to game ratio theory doesn't really describe the mechanism. What works development wise is touches. This is why the street soccer culture works so well. The training/game ratio is these cultures is zero. I don't think any changes you can think of will work in a broad sense until you have a soccer culture in which little kids want to play in a low structure environment on their own. That one will take a long time here, perhaps never.

I agree with the street soccer part of this response. In fact, there should be a futsal hard court built into almost every basketball court in the US.

However, what is happening in Europe is not just street soccer and small-sided games so that comment is misleading. The focus in Europe is development of technical and tactical and not just putting 11-year olds on a full-sized field and then play direct soccer to the biggest and fastest kids, or running 30 minutes of foot skill work that very few players know how to use in games at the appropriate times. That "style" is an American thing that is the lazy way of winning games. This doesn't develop soccer players, it just makes life much easier for coaches and trainers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CULTURE OF SOCCER.

People in other countries speak soccer the way people here speak football or baseball. There's no need to teach the equivalent of U9 parents in other countries the offside rule, they all already know it. Etc.

You'd be surprised.

My DC played u12 in Europe this summer. In some countries, offsides is not played until u12 and throw-ins are not done until u12 either. The focus is different - make the game more organic and fluid. Fewer whistles, fewer rules, keep the ball at kids' feet and get them touches and thinking about making runs and playing into space....

How about primarily 7v7 or 9v9 until U17 except for few big competitions a year? Another tidbit from girls soccer in Europe. Results secondary to development. Less games vs. training. Allowing players to play creatively and have fun doing so.

Most importantly, the professional clubs subsidize the youth not the other way around. And monetization for these clubs (and their investors) via development of youth players not from milking families in volume.

That’s where the previous post regarding breaking up monopoly is spot on. Promotion relegation at professional level is a must to try to break pay to play. Any reasons given that promotion relegation would not work in US are brainwashed answers coming from the US SOCCER / MLS mafia. Women could set example for men with a pro league with promotion relegation and local/regional investment and show how it could be done. The rest of the world playing women’s soccer is making it possible. Make it happen!

No one should be scared to be respectfully critical of the system if they are really interested in improving it for their own experiences and to give real opportunities to kids and families of all income levels.

-Signed parent of youth players in both boys and girls youth soccer with DA and ECNL experience.

That is a bit ironic. You talk all happy/glad stuff. But when push came to shove, rather than spending your money on a coach to develop your kids and have "Less games vs. training." you opted for the competitive world of DA and ECNL.

For my money, Europe is better at some things than us because they limit who can advance in certain fields. That is why their math scores are better than ours. In America, anyone can go to college and try to become a Math teacher. You only need to want to do it and you can get relatively far. In Europe, if you suck at math at a young age, you become a carpenter or tennis player or soccer player.......So only the best mathematicians get into fields that require it. Here, any Joe Blow pops in and brings our averages down.

I would guess that Soccer is similar....though there are a lot of valid reasons already mentioned about as well (football, basketball, field hockey, etc)

Finally, I think that Americans have a certain "drive to be the best" that others don't have. Thank the founding fathers that set up a culture to strive to do better, all people are created with equal rights...that affects our desires to be the best as well.

The DA and ECNL teams and clubs are only as good as the coaches and the players and I have always focused on the coach for all my kids. You seem to suggest that there numerous hidden gem coaches in the ODSL, NCSL and WAGS ranks - well that is simply not the case. As far as games vs. training go, the DA at least gets that right. So not sure what this convoluted response was all about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CULTURE OF SOCCER.

People in other countries speak soccer the way people here speak football or baseball. There's no need to teach the equivalent of U9 parents in other countries the offside rule, they all already know it. Etc.

You'd be surprised.

My DC played u12 in Europe this summer. In some countries, offsides is not played until u12 and throw-ins are not done until u12 either. The focus is different - make the game more organic and fluid. Fewer whistles, fewer rules, keep the ball at kids' feet and get them touches and thinking about making runs and playing into space....

How about primarily 7v7 or 9v9 until U17 except for few big competitions a year? Another tidbit from girls soccer in Europe. Results secondary to development. Less games vs. training. Allowing players to play creatively and have fun doing so.

Most importantly, the professional clubs subsidize the youth not the other way around. And monetization for these clubs (and their investors) via development of youth players not from milking families in volume.

That’s where the previous post regarding breaking up monopoly is spot on. Promotion relegation at professional level is a must to try to break pay to play. Any reasons given that promotion relegation would not work in US are brainwashed answers coming from the US SOCCER / MLS mafia. Women could set example for men with a pro league with promotion relegation and local/regional investment and show how it could be done. The rest of the world playing women’s soccer is making it possible. Make it happen!

No one should be scared to be respectfully critical of the system if they are really interested in improving it for their own experiences and to give real opportunities to kids and families of all income levels.

-Signed parent of youth players in both boys and girls youth soccer with DA and ECNL experience.

That is a bit ironic. You talk all happy/glad stuff. But when push came to shove, rather than spending your money on a coach to develop your kids and have "Less games vs. training." you opted for the competitive world of DA and ECNL.

For my money, Europe is better at some things than us because they limit who can advance in certain fields. That is why their math scores are better than ours. In America, anyone can go to college and try to become a Math teacher. You only need to want to do it and you can get relatively far. In Europe, if you suck at math at a young age, you become a carpenter or tennis player or soccer player.......So only the best mathematicians get into fields that require it. Here, any Joe Blow pops in and brings our averages down.

I would guess that Soccer is similar....though there are a lot of valid reasons already mentioned about as well (football, basketball, field hockey, etc)

Finally, I think that Americans have a certain "drive to be the best" that others don't have. Thank the founding fathers that set up a culture to strive to do better, all people are created with equal rights...that affects our desires to be the best as well.

This post was MAGA stupid.

Seriously. We should definitely sort all of our young age people into lifelong categories. Besides, who would want a carpenter good a math building your house....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CULTURE OF SOCCER.

People in other countries speak soccer the way people here speak football or baseball. There's no need to teach the equivalent of U9 parents in other countries the offside rule, they all already know it. Etc.

You'd be surprised.

My DC played u12 in Europe this summer. In some countries, offsides is not played until u12 and throw-ins are not done until u12 either. The focus is different - make the game more organic and fluid. Fewer whistles, fewer rules, keep the ball at kids' feet and get them touches and thinking about making runs and playing into space....

How about primarily 7v7 or 9v9 until U17 except for few big competitions a year? Another tidbit from girls soccer in Europe. Results secondary to development. Less games vs. training. Allowing players to play creatively and have fun doing so.

Most importantly, the professional clubs subsidize the youth not the other way around. And monetization for these clubs (and their investors) via development of youth players not from milking families in volume.

That’s where the previous post regarding breaking up monopoly is spot on. Promotion relegation at professional level is a must to try to break pay to play. Any reasons given that promotion relegation would not work in US are brainwashed answers coming from the US SOCCER / MLS mafia. Women could set example for men with a pro league with promotion relegation and local/regional investment and show how it could be done. The rest of the world playing women’s soccer is making it possible. Make it happen!

No one should be scared to be respectfully critical of the system if they are really interested in improving it for their own experiences and to give real opportunities to kids and families of all income levels.

-Signed parent of youth players in both boys and girls youth soccer with DA and ECNL experience.

That is a bit ironic. You talk all happy/glad stuff. But when push came to shove, rather than spending your money on a coach to develop your kids and have "Less games vs. training." you opted for the competitive world of DA and ECNL.

For my money, Europe is better at some things than us because they limit who can advance in certain fields. That is why their math scores are better than ours. In America, anyone can go to college and try to become a Math teacher. You only need to want to do it and you can get relatively far. In Europe, if you suck at math at a young age, you become a carpenter or tennis player or soccer player.......So only the best mathematicians get into fields that require it. Here, any Joe Blow pops in and brings our averages down.

I would guess that Soccer is similar....though there are a lot of valid reasons already mentioned about as well (football, basketball, field hockey, etc)

Finally, I think that Americans have a certain "drive to be the best" that others don't have. Thank the founding fathers that set up a culture to strive to do better, all people are created with equal rights...that affects our desires to be the best as well.

This post was MAGA stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CULTURE OF SOCCER.

People in other countries speak soccer the way people here speak football or baseball. There's no need to teach the equivalent of U9 parents in other countries the offside rule, they all already know it. Etc.

You'd be surprised.

My DC played u12 in Europe this summer. In some countries, offsides is not played until u12 and throw-ins are not done until u12 either. The focus is different - make the game more organic and fluid. Fewer whistles, fewer rules, keep the ball at kids' feet and get them touches and thinking about making runs and playing into space....

How about primarily 7v7 or 9v9 until U17 except for few big competitions a year? Another tidbit from girls soccer in Europe. Results secondary to development. Less games vs. training. Allowing players to play creatively and have fun doing so.

Most importantly, the professional clubs subsidize the youth not the other way around. And monetization for these clubs (and their investors) via development of youth players not from milking families in volume.

That’s where the previous post regarding breaking up monopoly is spot on. Promotion relegation at professional level is a must to try to break pay to play. Any reasons given that promotion relegation would not work in US are brainwashed answers coming from the US SOCCER / MLS mafia. Women could set example for men with a pro league with promotion relegation and local/regional investment and show how it could be done. The rest of the world playing women’s soccer is making it possible. Make it happen!

No one should be scared to be respectfully critical of the system if they are really interested in improving it for their own experiences and to give real opportunities to kids and families of all income levels.

-Signed parent of youth players in both boys and girls youth soccer with DA and ECNL experience.

That is a bit ironic. You talk all happy/glad stuff. But when push came to shove, rather than spending your money on a coach to develop your kids and have "Less games vs. training." you opted for the competitive world of DA and ECNL.

For my money, Europe is better at some things than us because they limit who can advance in certain fields. That is why their math scores are better than ours. In America, anyone can go to college and try to become a Math teacher. You only need to want to do it and you can get relatively far. In Europe, if you suck at math at a young age, you become a carpenter or tennis player or soccer player.......So only the best mathematicians get into fields that require it. Here, any Joe Blow pops in and brings our averages down.

I would guess that Soccer is similar....though there are a lot of valid reasons already mentioned about as well (football, basketball, field hockey, etc)

Finally, I think that Americans have a certain "drive to be the best" that others don't have. Thank the founding fathers that set up a culture to strive to do better, all people are created with equal rights...that affects our desires to be the best as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My DC played u12 in Europe this summer. In some countries, offsides is not played until u12 and throw-ins are not done until u12 either. The focus is different - make the game more organic and fluid. Fewer whistles, fewer rules, keep the ball at kids' feet and get them touches and thinking about making runs and playing into space....

How about primarily 7v7 or 9v9 until U17 except for few big competitions a year? Another tidbit from girls soccer in Europe. Results secondary to development. Less games vs. training. Allowing players to play creatively and have fun doing so.

That sounds like fun, small sided play, and fewer games. You're trying to encourage more kids to play right? The less games, more training is a US soccer mandate that doesn't work in our culture.

Anonymous wrote:Most importantly, the professional clubs subsidize the youth not the other way around. And monetization for these clubs (and their investors) via development of youth players not from milking families in volume.

Nice idea, but flawed. On the women's side, these clubs are struggling to keep their heads above water. Look at Spirit, they jettisoned their academy because it is a boat anchor in the current economic situation they face.

Anonymous wrote:

-Signed parent of youth players in both boys and girls youth soccer with DA and ECNL experience.

Thanks for the signature. It adds credibility to your post.

Thanks for the snark.

The boys and girls I saw playing in Europe had plenty of fun - your expertise aside. Training to game ratio is important if the goal is development. But if we want more cheap plastic trophies and medals, lets keep adding leagues, cups and championships so that everyone has one.

The reason clubs struggle is that there is no incentive for investors to get involved and no way to monetize development of players and clubs. Switch the model and you may see some big changes.

Maybe you didn't read my post. I don't think the high fraction of training/small sided game model works in our culture. What works in Europe doesn't necessarily work here. Furthermore, the training to game ratio theory doesn't really describe the mechanism. What works development wise is touches. This is why the street soccer culture works so well. The training/game ratio is these cultures is zero. I don't think any changes you can think of will work in a broad sense until you have a soccer culture in which little kids want to play in a low structure environment on their own. That one will take a long time here, perhaps never.