Anonymous wrote:I disagree. I’d say any high level high school age player can use both feet equally well. If they can’t, they are not that high level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With so much discussions about COVID-19, I’m resurrecting this thread so we can discuss soccer instead.

Question:

How often do you see ambidextrous players (girls) in the DMV? How important is it assuming that their dominant foot is great?

Back to the topic again.

With so much discussions about COVID-19, I’m resurrecting this thread so we can discuss soccer instead.

Question:

How often do you see ambidextrous players (girls) in the DMV? How important is it assuming that their dominant foot is great?

Anonymous wrote:With so much discussions about COVID-19, I’m resurrecting this thread so we can discuss soccer instead.

Question:

How often do you see ambidextrous players (girls) in the DMV? How important is it assuming that their dominant foot is great?

Anonymous wrote:With so much discussions about COVID-19, I’m resurrecting this thread so we can discuss soccer instead.

Question:

How often do you see ambidextrous players (girls) in the DMV? How important is it assuming that their dominant foot is great?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what you intended, the way that you characterize the Barcelona style of play is the precise reason why Pep and others considered the term tiki taka to be derisive. Your characterization reflects a total ignorance of what the players are actually doing, when you say that they are simply playing keep away.

You know it's funny reading this thread. The guy who has spent 20 pages bashing 14 year old girls and US women's soccer in general is now offended by someone's characterization of how Barcelona plays soccer.

I think I hear the sound of world's tiniest violin playing.

No one is bashing 14 year old girls.

Nor is anyone offended. The comment is pointing out that in making the incorrect characterization of tiki taka, the prior poster is demonstrating how he doesn't actually understand what is going on in the game, and doesn't understand what technical ability and tactical awareness entails.

Wrong answer, but nice try. Just because you don't agree with the term or the generalization doesn't mean you are right.

“Possession for possession sake” “playing keep away” = you don’t understand what you are seeing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what you intended, the way that you characterize the Barcelona style of play is the precise reason why Pep and others considered the term tiki taka to be derisive. Your characterization reflects a total ignorance of what the players are actually doing, when you say that they are simply playing keep away.

You know it's funny reading this thread. The guy who has spent 20 pages bashing 14 year old girls and US women's soccer in general is now offended by someone's characterization of how Barcelona plays soccer.

I think I hear the sound of world's tiniest violin playing.

No one is bashing 14 year old girls.

Nor is anyone offended. The comment is pointing out that in making the incorrect characterization of tiki taka, the prior poster is demonstrating how he doesn't actually understand what is going on in the game, and doesn't understand what technical ability and tactical awareness entails.

Wrong answer, but nice try. Just because you don't agree with the term or the generalization doesn't mean you are right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what you intended, the way that you characterize the Barcelona style of play is the precise reason why Pep and others considered the term tiki taka to be derisive. Your characterization reflects a total ignorance of what the players are actually doing, when you say that they are simply playing keep away.

You know it's funny reading this thread. The guy who has spent 20 pages bashing 14 year old girls and US women's soccer in general is now offended by someone's characterization of how Barcelona plays soccer.

I think I hear the sound of world's tiniest violin playing.

No one is bashing 14 year old girls.

Nor is anyone offended. The comment is pointing out that in making the incorrect characterization of tiki taka, the prior poster is demonstrating how he doesn't actually understand what is going on in the game, and doesn't understand what technical ability and tactical awareness entails.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what you intended, the way that you characterize the Barcelona style of play is the precise reason why Pep and others considered the term tiki taka to be derisive. Your characterization reflects a total ignorance of what the players are actually doing, when you say that they are simply playing keep away.

You know it's funny reading this thread. The guy who has spent 20 pages bashing 14 year old girls and US women's soccer in general is now offended by someone's characterization of how Barcelona plays soccer.

I think I hear the sound of world's tiniest violin playing.

No one is bashing 14 year old girls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what you intended, the way that you characterize the Barcelona style of play is the precise reason why Pep and others considered the term tiki taka to be derisive. Your characterization reflects a total ignorance of what the players are actually doing, when you say that they are simply playing keep away.

You know it's funny reading this thread. The guy who has spent 20 pages bashing 14 year old girls and US women's soccer in general is now offended by someone's characterization of how Barcelona plays soccer.

I think I hear the sound of world's tiniest violin playing.

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what you intended, the way that you characterize the Barcelona style of play is the precise reason why Pep and others considered the term tiki taka to be derisive. Your characterization reflects a total ignorance of what the players are actually doing, when you say that they are simply playing keep away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You still didn't get the rock paper scissors analogy, so I'll break it down for you further. The rock doesn't win every battle. Enjoy your win, paper.

Because it is irrelevant. You continue to argue that results in youth soccer matter. Development matters. Playing to win at 12 at all costs does not develop all the players. There are lots of ways to win and call it a rock, a paper or scissors. Does a direct style make players more well rounded?

You can spout all you want but in the end if you control and keep the ball at your own discretion you have to find other ways to play.

If the style of play is to simply dribble at the opponent or get the ball to Mia oh are not developing.

It is ok, you don’t get it.

You are a true dunce. you make a big deal out of the results of one game, and from the other side of your mouth argue the result doesn't matter.

As has been stated many times, PDA didn't plan for tiki taka, and they showed it. They don't face it all year, so it's not surprising. This doesn't mean their girls are not technical, nor that they can't play a different style, nor does their management stink.

ONE GAME. Get over yourself.

Technical is more than being good at 1v1s. Technical is also being efficient with the ball. If you can receive and pass the ball accurately with one touch that is both technical and efficient. I’m sure the PDA girls can dribble at a player and beat them 1v1 but why take 6 touches when one or two will do the job?

Spoken like a true Tiki-taka acolyte. Johan would be proud. Though I'd still argue it was a style choice, not technical ability.

I'm arguing that they had no choice to make. They have played their way without opposition for so long that they were incapable of changing their style to accommodate one game. The indictment isn't against the PDA team the indictment is against the 30-40 teams that offered them zero competition and very different looks at opposing playing styles to even NEED to adapt.

If you don't NEED to adapt then you are not developing. We are a large enough nation with enough players that surely we could have enough clubs proficient at a variety of styles to give a team like PDA a different competitive look from time to time. This is why losing is good. It forces you to learn and grow as a team and as players. My guess is PDA likely doesn't mess with their team system a whole lot. They are probably unwilling to take a L in favor of dedicating a month to a new formation or change a look. And frankly, they are not challenged enough to force the issue either.

So again, you are missing the overall points.

No, I just don't agree with you.

+1000. No one here with any common sense and with soccer and sports experience agree with him either.

Again, IT’S ONE GAME. You are truly obsessed with this one game. You are no longer becoming CREEPY, you are now full-fledged CREEPY.

Literally no one who is critiquing the technical ability of US girls is doing so on the basis of one game.

Nor is anyone saying that the only way technical skills can be demonstrated is to "play like Barcelona." The styles of several teams mentioned--Bayern, Liverpool, French national team--may be different but all require a high degree of technical skill.

Last, the Barcelona girls team did not employ a "tiki-taka" style as that derisive term has come to be understood. However, their demonstrated ability to pass and move and play with tactical awareness is far superior to any US girls teams I have seen play, whether in videos from that ICC tournament or elsewhere.

Tiki-taka wasn't meant to be derisive, merely a characterization of their style of play. Essentially, keep away using short passes. These girls were trained to possess the ball, and they did it. Wow, what an accomplishment! You are insinuating that the US girls could not do the same, and you are also implying that because they have no knowledge at 14 years old how to overcome such tactics that they are somehow inferior.

You are wrong on all counts.