Anonymous wrote:There you have it folks.
US didn't qualify for the World Cup.

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=20986667

Can't wait to see how the 2005,2006,2007 DA boys grow up, they were were the first ones to be eligible for the U12 DA and could potentially have similar hours of training at 17-18 years of age as their counterparts in European academies. I think then we will be able to see at U20 how many players destined for high-level of college and professional teams continue and then how many of those do break in to the USMNT in their mid-twenties. This experiment will take a while, but if the DA doesn't seem to be bearing fruit by 2030 WC, then it would be safe to say it didn't work. I know, 2030, but what most people don't realize(including myself) is development takes a long time and only flowers for a few years. A great footballer can look at an average of 8-10 years of playing time with 2-3 years in their late twenties as their prime. This excludes the legends of Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar, Henry, Mbappe, Dembele, Pulisic who could potentially have a 15-20 year career, which would mean you would have to start in your late teens as a professional.

There you have it folks.
US didn't qualify for the World Cup.

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=20986667

Anonymous wrote:Oscar leaving was the downfall of the club

+1

Oscar leaving was the downfall of the club

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if reducing the teams' size would make sense, it sounds like a non-starter, as it would mean less money for the clubs.

One alternative would be to lengthen the duration of the game. At the U13 level they just play 35 minutes, which means (for a roster of 17 players including one goalkeeper), an average playing time of 44 minutes by field player when everybody shows up. Going for 45-minute halves would increase the average playing time by 12.5 minutes.

This is good but it would help to figure out a way to scale up to it from U10/U11 on. I guess model lengthen those games while maintaining a sub ratio would work?

Why the hell do you care about Clubs having more and more kids for the $$???

Here's something--just don't take so many kids to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:Even if reducing the teams' size would make sense, it sounds like a non-starter, as it would mean less money for the clubs.

One alternative would be to lengthen the duration of the game. At the U13 level they just play 35 minutes, which means (for a roster of 17 players including one goalkeeper), an average playing time of 44 minutes by field player when everybody shows up. Going for 45-minute halves would increase the average playing time by 12.5 minutes.

This is good but it would help to figure out a way to scale up to it from U10/U11 on. I guess model lengthen those games while maintaining a sub ratio would work?

Even if reducing the teams' size would make sense, it sounds like a non-starter, as it would mean less money for the clubs.

One alternative would be to lengthen the duration of the game. At the U13 level they just play 35 minutes, which means (for a roster of 17 players including one goalkeeper), an average playing time of 44 minutes by field player when everybody shows up. Going for 45-minute halves would increase the average playing time by 12.5 minutes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem too is that not enough teams focus on conditioning, cardio and calisthenics. Fitness is a huge part of the game, and although there's lots of teams that want to play a possession-heavy, high-octane attacking style, they're physically unable to do so, at least not for very long, and they tend to crumble under high pressure, are unable to win headers or 50/50 balls, and just get manhandled by more aggressive teams. Physicality needs to be embraced by these teams, as many of them are unable to keep up with the philosophy once they're uncomfortable. Soccer is a game meant to be played when you're uncomfortable. When you're sore, tired, beat up, out of breath, that's when you need to push yourself and find an extra 10% of effort to give. We need to encourage players to be physical, to be strong on the tackle, to be fearless without being dirty. However, as many of you have said, it's easier to just tell your guys to hoof the ball and run after it, but that won't put the US in the higher echeleon of the soccer pantheon.

That is why substitutions should be limited. It is easy to play a pedal to the metal aggressive style of soccer when you can go in and out in shifts. We play soccer like its hockey with lines and shifts. When you do that a game never develops flow or nuance. Endurance and energy management are a huge part of the game that is lost in the States. It is a different price to pay when you go all in and charge a defender in the corner and you're not going to be subbed out right away or if you are you are not going back in. When faced with conserving your energy, perhaps it is best to drop back and keep your shape and get the ball back another way since it is no threat to your team if it is in their corner.

Nice discussion. What ages are you suggesting on this?

That is the tricky part. I could see by U10 not going back into the game for the half if subbed out. This would require shorter benches thus creating more teams at the younger ages. You still absolutely want kids to play as much as possible and shorter benches is the only way to achieve that if you are limiting subs. More teams would also create a bit of a coaching strain in regards to games. But imagine a 7v7 team that had 12 kids before being split into two teams and adding 6 players from the B team. The previous bottom 3-4 kids are now playing meaningful minutes and the team could be roughly a similar pool designated as Team 1A and 1B.

Feel free to pick it a part or add to it.

From what I've heard/seen, BRYC u9-u11 girls does this now. Main coach does all pool of 60 kids with 4 assistants. Games are ~10 player rosters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem too is that not enough teams focus on conditioning, cardio and calisthenics. Fitness is a huge part of the game, and although there's lots of teams that want to play a possession-heavy, high-octane attacking style, they're physically unable to do so, at least not for very long, and they tend to crumble under high pressure, are unable to win headers or 50/50 balls, and just get manhandled by more aggressive teams. Physicality needs to be embraced by these teams, as many of them are unable to keep up with the philosophy once they're uncomfortable. Soccer is a game meant to be played when you're uncomfortable. When you're sore, tired, beat up, out of breath, that's when you need to push yourself and find an extra 10% of effort to give. We need to encourage players to be physical, to be strong on the tackle, to be fearless without being dirty. However, as many of you have said, it's easier to just tell your guys to hoof the ball and run after it, but that won't put the US in the higher echeleon of the soccer pantheon.

That is why substitutions should be limited. It is easy to play a pedal to the metal aggressive style of soccer when you can go in and out in shifts. We play soccer like its hockey with lines and shifts. When you do that a game never develops flow or nuance. Endurance and energy management are a huge part of the game that is lost in the States. It is a different price to pay when you go all in and charge a defender in the corner and you're not going to be subbed out right away or if you are you are not going back in. When faced with conserving your energy, perhaps it is best to drop back and keep your shape and get the ball back another way since it is no threat to your team if it is in their corner.

Nice discussion. What ages are you suggesting on this?

That is the tricky part. I could see by U10 not going back into the game for the half if subbed out. This would require shorter benches thus creating more teams at the younger ages. You still absolutely want kids to play as much as possible and shorter benches is the only way to achieve that if you are limiting subs. More teams would also create a bit of a coaching strain in regards to games. But imagine a 7v7 team that had 12 kids before being split into two teams and adding 6 players from the B team. The previous bottom 3-4 kids are now playing meaningful minutes and the team could be roughly a similar pool designated as Team 1A and 1B.

Feel free to pick it a part or add to it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem too is that not enough teams focus on conditioning, cardio and calisthenics. Fitness is a huge part of the game, and although there's lots of teams that want to play a possession-heavy, high-octane attacking style, they're physically unable to do so, at least not for very long, and they tend to crumble under high pressure, are unable to win headers or 50/50 balls, and just get manhandled by more aggressive teams. Physicality needs to be embraced by these teams, as many of them are unable to keep up with the philosophy once they're uncomfortable. Soccer is a game meant to be played when you're uncomfortable. When you're sore, tired, beat up, out of breath, that's when you need to push yourself and find an extra 10% of effort to give. We need to encourage players to be physical, to be strong on the tackle, to be fearless without being dirty. However, as many of you have said, it's easier to just tell your guys to hoof the ball and run after it, but that won't put the US in the higher echeleon of the soccer pantheon.

That is why substitutions should be limited. It is easy to play a pedal to the metal aggressive style of soccer when you can go in and out in shifts. We play soccer like its hockey with lines and shifts. When you do that a game never develops flow or nuance. Endurance and energy management are a huge part of the game that is lost in the States. It is a different price to pay when you go all in and charge a defender in the corner and you're not going to be subbed out right away or if you are you are not going back in. When faced with conserving your energy, perhaps it is best to drop back and keep your shape and get the ball back another way since it is no threat to your team if it is in their corner.

Nice discussion. What ages are you suggesting on this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem too is that not enough teams focus on conditioning, cardio and calisthenics. Fitness is a huge part of the game, and although there's lots of teams that want to play a possession-heavy, high-octane attacking style, they're physically unable to do so, at least not for very long, and they tend to crumble under high pressure, are unable to win headers or 50/50 balls, and just get manhandled by more aggressive teams. Physicality needs to be embraced by these teams, as many of them are unable to keep up with the philosophy once they're uncomfortable. Soccer is a game meant to be played when you're uncomfortable. When you're sore, tired, beat up, out of breath, that's when you need to push yourself and find an extra 10% of effort to give. We need to encourage players to be physical, to be strong on the tackle, to be fearless without being dirty. However, as many of you have said, it's easier to just tell your guys to hoof the ball and run after it, but that won't put the US in the higher echeleon of the soccer pantheon.

That is why substitutions should be limited. It is easy to play a pedal to the metal aggressive style of soccer when you can go in and out in shifts. We play soccer like its hockey with lines and shifts. When you do that a game never develops flow or nuance. Endurance and energy management are a huge part of the game that is lost in the States. It is a different price to pay when you go all in and charge a defender in the corner and you're not going to be subbed out right away or if you are you are not going back in. When faced with conserving your energy, perhaps it is best to drop back and keep your shape and get the ball back another way since it is no threat to your team if it is in their corner.

Our big club had a ridiculous amount of subs on a team. Why?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Anonymous wrote:Part of the problem too is that not enough teams focus on conditioning, cardio and calisthenics. Fitness is a huge part of the game, and although there's lots of teams that want to play a possession-heavy, high-octane attacking style, they're physically unable to do so, at least not for very long, and they tend to crumble under high pressure, are unable to win headers or 50/50 balls, and just get manhandled by more aggressive teams. Physicality needs to be embraced by these teams, as many of them are unable to keep up with the philosophy once they're uncomfortable. Soccer is a game meant to be played when you're uncomfortable. When you're sore, tired, beat up, out of breath, that's when you need to push yourself and find an extra 10% of effort to give. We need to encourage players to be physical, to be strong on the tackle, to be fearless without being dirty. However, as many of you have said, it's easier to just tell your guys to hoof the ball and run after it, but that won't put the US in the higher echeleon of the soccer pantheon.

That is why substitutions should be limited. It is easy to play a pedal to the metal aggressive style of soccer when you can go in and out in shifts. We play soccer like its hockey with lines and shifts. When you do that a game never develops flow or nuance. Endurance and energy management are a huge part of the game that is lost in the States. It is a different price to pay when you go all in and charge a defender in the corner and you're not going to be subbed out right away or if you are you are not going back in. When faced with conserving your energy, perhaps it is best to drop back and keep your shape and get the ball back another way since it is no threat to your team if it is in their corner.

Part of the problem too is that not enough teams focus on conditioning, cardio and calisthenics. Fitness is a huge part of the game, and although there's lots of teams that want to play a possession-heavy, high-octane attacking style, they're physically unable to do so, at least not for very long, and they tend to crumble under high pressure, are unable to win headers or 50/50 balls, and just get manhandled by more aggressive teams. Physicality needs to be embraced by these teams, as many of them are unable to keep up with the philosophy once they're uncomfortable. Soccer is a game meant to be played when you're uncomfortable. When you're sore, tired, beat up, out of breath, that's when you need to push yourself and find an extra 10% of effort to give. We need to encourage players to be physical, to be strong on the tackle, to be fearless without being dirty. However, as many of you have said, it's easier to just tell your guys to hoof the ball and run after it, but that won't put the US in the higher echeleon of the soccer pantheon.

The ability to deal with pressure.

Playing possession against a weak team that doesn't pressure is easy. Playing possession against a full throttle team is extremely hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alexandria is still the best example of a club that focuses on possession consistently at each level (regardless of the outcome). Not Arlington at all! Maybe they have a few teams/coaches that do, but not consistently at all!

+1

ITA