Anonymous wrote:Coaching education provided by USSF just isn’t good enough. The fact they discourage coaches from using rondos tells you everything you need to know about why players are not being properly developed.

The USSF's war on rondos is ridiculous. All three of the last WC winners did rondos in training and warm ups:

France
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46mtBhIT6YE

Germany starting at 2:17
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdM1EQOI0Pc

Spain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv-GeyJ2qMI

Coaching education provided by USSF just isn’t good enough. The fact they discourage coaches from using rondos tells you everything you need to know about why players are not being properly developed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same tired drivel over and over on this board. These threads should just be locked because they are bereft of new ideas or solutions. In any case, the problem of men’s soccer in the USA will not be solved on the DCUM forum. Folks here need to “be the change” they want in the world. Anonymous posts here fall way short of that mark.

You want to "be the change?" Here's an idea: Get outside the box. If your kid wants to be a soccer pro you need to follow the model used by families of Olympic champions and don't get sucked into a system that produces poor outcomes. Why spend $50K in travel fees to get your kid a scholarship so some college can exploit him for four years playing for free in the relatively low-level competitive environment of the NCAA, after which he can beg some MLS team to draft him to play for $30K a year?

I see people on these boards going nuts over ECNL vs. DA. Both are basically dead ends for anyone serious about going pro. ECNL is aimed at getting players looks for college scholarships. DA is just glorified travel soccer. If enough of the best players get out of the system, the market will respond.

Yes, I agree. Move to Europe.

You go first.

It is a tough choice. Nothing is given to you. Moving to Europe is not easy. It's a big risk and is not for softies. Some players, who have ability to move to Europe, stay in MLS to be close to their parents (Morris); others, take a tougher road and move to Europe (Pulisic, McKeenie, Adams, Sargent). If your kid has enough ability and is driven enough, he should go. If either ability or drive is not there, he should stay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same tired drivel over and over on this board. These threads should just be locked because they are bereft of new ideas or solutions. In any case, the problem of men’s soccer in the USA will not be solved on the DCUM forum. Folks here need to “be the change” they want in the world. Anonymous posts here fall way short of that mark.

You want to "be the change?" Here's an idea: Get outside the box. If your kid wants to be a soccer pro you need to follow the model used by families of Olympic champions and don't get sucked into a system that produces poor outcomes. Why spend $50K in travel fees to get your kid a scholarship so some college can exploit him for four years playing for free in the relatively low-level competitive environment of the NCAA, after which he can beg some MLS team to draft him to play for $30K a year?

I see people on these boards going nuts over ECNL vs. DA. Both are basically dead ends for anyone serious about going pro. ECNL is aimed at getting players looks for college scholarships. DA is just glorified travel soccer. If enough of the best players get out of the system, the market will respond.

Yes, I agree. Move to Europe.

You go first.

Anonymous wrote:The same tired drivel over and over on this board. These threads should just be locked because they are bereft of new ideas or solutions. In any case, the problem of men’s soccer in the USA will not be solved on the DCUM forum. Folks here need to “be the change” they want in the world. Anonymous posts here fall way short of that mark.

You want to "be the change?" Here's an idea: Get outside the box. If your kid wants to be a soccer pro you need to follow the model used by families of Olympic champions and don't get sucked into a system that produces poor outcomes. Why spend $50K in travel fees to get your kid a scholarship so some college can exploit him for four years playing for free in the relatively low-level competitive environment of the NCAA, after which he can beg some MLS team to draft him to play for $30K a year?

I see people on these boards going nuts over ECNL vs. DA. Both are basically dead ends for anyone serious about going pro. ECNL is aimed at getting players looks for college scholarships. DA is just glorified travel soccer. If enough of the best players get out of the system, the market will respond.

Anonymous wrote:The same tired drivel over and over on this board. These threads should just be locked because they are bereft of new ideas or solutions. In any case, the problem of men’s soccer in the USA will not be solved on the DCUM forum. Folks here need to “be the change” they want in the world. Anonymous posts here fall way short of that mark.

It should already have changed after last year's failure, but people seem willing to put up with having the same tired old USSF/MLS/SUM establishment soothe them back to sleep with BS and empty promises. When the USMNT fails to qualify for another World Cup, which is where they're headed right now, maybe it will be different. Because sustained failure seems to be the only thing that gets people mad enough to do something.

Anonymous wrote:The idea that our best players are switching from soccer to other sports in their teenage years seems to be one of those things that just gets tossed out there and often repeated even though it has no basis in reality.

Seriously, how many boys do any of you know who had legit pro potential - or even lets just say they were one of the most talented players on a top bracket level team at U9-U11, or DA team at U12-U13 - but then they gave it all up and are now playing football or basketball?

Nationally, I can think of O'Dell Beckham Jr, but that's about it. But locally - and I've been around the youth soccer scene in the DMV for over 15 years - I can't think of a single player who was a truly a standout at soccer going into their teenage years and then quit to play another sport.

I can think of quite a few kids who were great all-around athletes who did make the switch from soccer to play something else, but none of them were among the best of the best in soccer. Most of them switched to a sport where their raw athleticism would give them more of an advantage, after it became clear to them that they were never going to be a star in soccer because they didn't have the skill level of the kids who lived with a ball at their feat all the time.

The point is people toss that around like it matters, but it doesn't. Even if it were 100 percent true, we'd still have a bigger player pool than Belgium or Croatia from the players who don't switch. So why aren't we developing an equivalent amount of good players? The answer: We're not developing them at all. USSF is remarkably passive about that, and that's the difference between the US and those two countries.

The idea that our best players are switching from soccer to other sports in their teenage years seems to be one of those things that just gets tossed out there and often repeated even though it has no basis in reality.

Seriously, how many boys do any of you know who had legit pro potential - or even lets just say they were one of the most talented players on a top bracket level team at U9-U11, or DA team at U12-U13 - but then they gave it all up and are now playing football or basketball?

Nationally, I can think of O'Dell Beckham Jr, but that's about it. But locally - and I've been around the youth soccer scene in the DMV for over 15 years - I can't think of a single player who was a truly a standout at soccer going into their teenage years and then quit to play another sport.

I can think of quite a few kids who were great all-around athletes who did make the switch from soccer to play something else, but none of them were among the best of the best in soccer. Most of them switched to a sport where their raw athleticism would give them more of an advantage, after it became clear to them that they were never going to be a star in soccer because they didn't have the skill level of the kids who lived with a ball at their feat all the time.

The same tired drivel over and over on this board. These threads should just be locked because they are bereft of new ideas or solutions. In any case, the problem of men’s soccer in the USA will not be solved on the DCUM forum. Folks here need to “be the change” they want in the world. Anonymous posts here fall way short of that mark.

MLS is a closed system. The NCAA is a closed system. All the major development opportunities for US men in soccer are in systems which are shut off from top-level competitive environments where a player's skills can be tested to the limit and improved. It's a recipe for perpetual mediocrity.

Anonymous wrote:Our best player, Pulisic, is an average player by international standards, which is not bad. The rest are below average although a handful of young players has some promise. So the talent level is not very high. Even so, I would not let the coaches completely off the hook, especially with sports media gushing over the tactical genius of Berhalter. Coaches select players and instill the style of play. So far, it is too early to tell if this team has developed identity, but I don't see a dramatic change for the better other than the team getting younger. As for economic factors, our professional soccer system is a closed monopoly-type system, which is not good for developing talent. Until we align with the rest of the world in how professional leagues are run (i.e. open pyramid with promotion/relegation), we will continue to underachieve, both in talent development and in identifying/utilizing available talent more effectively.

The US has >300 million people. More than Belgium. More than Croatia. More even than France or a lot of other big international soccer powers. It's not contradictory to say that a lot of talent is lost to other sports, but the ones who remain are stuck in a system which does a lousy job of developing them. The fact that our best players now are those who went to Europe young -- not just Pulisic, but Weston McKennie and Serginho Dest, to name a couple -- is evidence of that. MLS doesn't care, because it just waits around for the colleges to develop them so they can be drafted, and the competition level in the NCAA is nothing compared to professional youth squads. And USSF is too beholden to MLS to create an open development system or to bring in coaches who will challenge the mediocre MLS mafia. The only hope for the USMNT is if more Americans kids went to Europe at a relatively young age and got a real soccer education. But that's the most difficult and least likely option for most of them.

Our best player, Pulisic, is an average player by international standards, which is not bad. The rest are below average although a handful of young players has some promise. So the talent level is not very high. Even so, I would not let the coaches completely off the hook, especially with sports media gushing over the tactical genius of Berhalter. Coaches select players and instill the style of play. So far, it is too early to tell if this team has developed identity, but I don't see a dramatic change for the better other than the team getting younger. As for economic factors, our professional soccer system is a closed monopoly-type system, which is not good for developing talent. Until we align with the rest of the world in how professional leagues are run (i.e. open pyramid with promotion/relegation), we will continue to underachieve, both in talent development and in identifying/utilizing available talent more effectively.

I was OP for the sub thread stating that it is our players, not our coaches that are the reason the USMNT does not have success.

The replies to this have started a sub-context argument of economics v. culture. These are not conflicting arguments, they are part of the same argument. Economics are part of any culture and culture also, in turn, drives economics. Most kids begin and continue playing a sport because they like it. However, "elite" athletes, especially in the teenage years, may focus on the sport that a) they like and b) is also of most economic benefit to them, if they have a choice, which many "elite" athletes do. In the US these elite athletes tend to not choose soccer. This is both cultural and economic.

When younger, they may also start playing the sport and liking the sport due to role models. Those role models are who they see on tv all the time, and talk to their friends about and emulate, etc. These roles models are on tv because ... they make A LOT of money because they play a sport that has a lot of tv coverage (which also turns into lucrative shoe / other contracts … i.e. even more commercial exposure). In other words, they are sports role models because of the economics. This in turn drives the culture which views the sport as something to be fans of and to aspire to be a professional at. Only a small percentage make it to that level and even a smaller percentage become starts at the level and an even smaller percentage become international stars at that level. These elite of the elite are what the USMNT is missing.

Anyhow, until BOTH the cultural and economic factors combine (and feed each other) to get more elite athletes to play soccer in the first place, continue to play soccer as they become teens, and train like fanatics to become world class at that sport (because there are economic and cultural forces driving them to do so in addition to their own motivation), the USMNT will not have the success our country is accustomed to in having in other team sports.

This is neither good nor bad, it just is what it is. It does make it frustrating to be a USMNT fan, but it also tempers expectations. If US Soccer really wants the men's team to succeed at greater levels, they need to focus on the economic and cultural factors of the game to grow, identify, and retain the best of the best. They currently fail at this on the men's side, but to be fair, there is A LOT of competition in this country for the attention and dedication of the elite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I find extremely humorous is that, as intelligent as you think you may be, you can’t see the link between culture and economics. Fascinating.

I won’t stoop to your level of calling others’ argument “stupid,” but the opposing point is more correct than yours. Coaches cannot train talent into players.

Not the PP...but you are moving the goal posts. To say kids play other sports because of earnings potential isn't cultural...it's economic. And I don't think that is correct at all.

What can I say....if you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

Oh no, I get it - your argument is weak and incorrect.

Actually no, yours is. Coaching does not instill talent. Talent is innate.

There you go again...jumping from economics to culture to talent. Obviously you're not looking to have an actual discussion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the statue reference. As if any coach (or club for that matter) anywhere spends as much time and detail on any single player as an artist would spend on a life work!

This board is rich.

Then who is going to teach the kid who can't run fast to be able to run fast?

great question!