U17 Women's World Cup

I don’t think the girls need to learn how to flop, roll around in full drama, like 80% of the guys game. They need to watch Womens Soccer at the highest levels. JMHO
 
Soccer Wire interviewed Anson Dorrance and asked him about his impression of the U17 performance. It was a very interesting read. A few key takeaways. He was impressed with the level of athleticism on the US side. He felt US girls at this age lack the tactical knowledge it takes to be successful at the highest level. He believes the real learning will come in college and lastly, he said the US girls don’t watch enough professional soccer or as he described it, they don’t immerse themselves in the game at the youth level.
Current AD teams rely on athleticism so not surprised by that comment. I find what he often says a duality compared to what he does as coach. Per his comments on tactical knowledge he at this time and place is not one to look to in this regard other than he acknowledges it. I do agree that real learning comes or can in colllege. MAP alluded to this as well. And, he is correct most girls don’t watch enough despite if it’s womens or men’s.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think the girls need to learn how to flop, roll around in full drama, like 80% of the guys game. They need to watch Womens Soccer at the highest levels. JMHO
That’s not the point. My girls think it’s bogus regarding flopping, but they do watch players in their respective positions and learn.
 
Agree with Lastman - I read a book that gave a lot of insight into AD. Maybe "Warrior Girls"? Not a coach I would want my kid to play for. Maybe he's chilled in his older years. As mentioned, he is all about athleticism. Watch his teams -- direct and a lot of kickball. Not the style I'd like to see US or Canada play. And not the direction the World is moving toward.

Canada v Mexico tomorrow! Go Canucks!
 
Many good points in this article but they've honestly all been made before. Nothing new here. Some clubs/teams encompass/teach many of the principles he says are missing, but the operative word is "some".... not all. It's the mixed bag of styles, philosophies, quality that allows for what we have today. That's not going away anytime soon, so the only thing to do (if you have a kid playing at a high level) is to get with the right coach/team for their development, which is subjective. It is quite a quandry.
 
Some interesting analysis of the U17 world cup performance and thoughts on player selection in the US youth system: https://www.starsandstripesfc.com/2...u17-womens-national-team-lost-world-cup-again

Agree with 95% of article. BUT, the author equates "dribbling" and "1v1" play with direct, longball, and athleticism. Watch u17 Spain and you will see that every player on that team can and does dribble effectively. And, they have fantastic 1v1-playing forwards. Defense and midfield uses dribbling sometimes and other times passing to solve pressure. Contrast to US, they actually didn't dribble enough to get out of pressure but instead tried to one or two-touch pass without an open passing channel. Not saying to dribble through two lines of pressure, but sometimes dribbling is necessary on the middle of the pitch to lose a single defender then open up a passing channel.

That's my only criticism with this piece -- it's not black and white -- you either possess and pass or you dribble and play longball. No, it's more nuanced. All the winning and great teams (mens and womens) have players who can and do both. Looked to me like US players were overly pressured (coaching?) to pass at all times, eschewing the dribble. Canada, MEx, Korea and Japan all dribbled more than US.

The development problem is that there are very, very few USA clubs who are dedicated club-wide to play a possession-oriented style. Club-wide so a player is developed through the years into that mindset, not just a year or two with this coach then the next two years with a direct-style coach, etc. It's the same in Canada. So, girls (and boys) are not able to do it on a World stage, let alone in the selection camps.
 
Agree with 95% of article. BUT, the author equates "dribbling" and "1v1" play with direct, longball, and athleticism. Watch u17 Spain and you will see that every player on that team can and does dribble effectively. And, they have fantastic 1v1-playing forwards. Defense and midfield uses dribbling sometimes and other times passing to solve pressure. Contrast to US, they actually didn't dribble enough to get out of pressure but instead tried to one or two-touch pass without an open passing channel. Not saying to dribble through two lines of pressure, but sometimes dribbling is necessary on the middle of the pitch to lose a single defender then open up a passing channel.

That's my only criticism with this piece -- it's not black and white -- you either possess and pass or you dribble and play longball. No, it's more nuanced. All the winning and great teams (mens and womens) have players who can and do both. Looked to me like US players were overly pressured (coaching?) to pass at all times, eschewing the dribble. Canada, MEx, Korea and Japan all dribbled more than US.

The development problem is that there are very, very few USA clubs who are dedicated club-wide to play a possession-oriented style. Club-wide so a player is developed through the years into that mindset, not just a year or two with this coach then the next two years with a direct-style coach, etc. It's the same in Canada. So, girls (and boys) are not able to do it on a World stage, let alone in the selection camps.
Very good point. There is a lot of confusion when people talk about possession soccer, because they think that it is about passing the ball around, often without purpose. The term positional soccer is more accurate than possession soccer to describe this style. It is about understanding where you are in the field relative to your teammates and the opponents, and how to advance the ball making sure at all cost that you do not lose it. People theorize about the most efficient way of advancing the ball in this juego de posicion, and driving with the ball on your feet up to the point where you face the defender and have to make the decision of either passing or stepping on the ball (and in rare occasions dribble) is actually the preferred/safest option. So yes, players must be great at driving and dribbling (and of course at passing and controlling the ball, which are the two most basic technical actions in soccer). Then, as a team, you want to bring to ball to the players up front that are experts in 1v1, where 1v1 are safest to do and most effective, typically to the wingers if your formation has them. What you cannot do is play with wingers in the midfield, that is a recipe for disaster and what often happens with these US teams.
 
Agree with 95% of article. BUT, the author equates "dribbling" and "1v1" play with direct, longball, and athleticism. Watch u17 Spain and you will see that every player on that team can and does dribble effectively. And, they have fantastic 1v1-playing forwards. Defense and midfield uses dribbling sometimes and other times passing to solve pressure. Contrast to US, they actually didn't dribble enough to get out of pressure but instead tried to one or two-touch pass without an open passing channel. Not saying to dribble through two lines of pressure, but sometimes dribbling is necessary on the middle of the pitch to lose a single defender then open up a passing channel.

That's my only criticism with this piece -- it's not black and white -- you either possess and pass or you dribble and play longball. No, it's more nuanced. All the winning and great teams (mens and womens) have players who can and do both. Looked to me like US players were overly pressured (coaching?) to pass at all times, eschewing the dribble. Canada, MEx, Korea and Japan all dribbled more than US.

The development problem is that there are very, very few USA clubs who are dedicated club-wide to play a possession-oriented style. Club-wide so a player is developed through the years into that mindset, not just a year or two with this coach then the next two years with a direct-style coach, etc. It's the same in Canada. So, girls (and boys) are not able to do it on a World stage, let alone in the selection camps.

I agree with what you are saying. I will only add that it's unrealistic to expect the U17s to excel because they just don't train together enough to generate the familiarity and sophisticated style of play necessary to beat other countries that are more committed to winning meaningless U17 games and who can train together more consistently. US players don't have nearly enough time together in camps to really teach positional soccer or anything nuanced really, let alone get to the point where they can effectively implement it in a game. And it is hard for USSF to tell who gets it (or might) by watching club games because, as you note, few clubs are teaching it at a high level. There are some beast athletes out there on teams that aren't committed to positional soccer but who are perfectly capable of playing it. And a superior athlete with the potential to play at a more sophisticated level has a much higher upside than a lesser athlete who already does; it's just a matter of figuring out which 2 or 3 uber athletes in each age group will actually reach that upside. Only 2-3 kids per year on average will make any meaningful contribution to the full WNT, so it only needs 2-3 of the world's best in each age group and, presto, it has easily the best team in the world as long as Jill Ellis doesn't screw it up; it's just a matter of finding them. And that is why USSF picks better athletes over less athletic but more tactically sophisticated players at the youth level. If it picked the better tactical 16 year olds, USSF would only leveling the playing field by eliminating the biggest advantage it has at the WNT level, which is superior athleticism.

In the end, USSF doesn't care whether its U17 team is better than anyone else's because it's only interested in the 2-3 players per age group with the perfect mix of athletic ability, technical skill and tactical IQ that it is looking for. We know one U17 was head and shoulders better than any other player on the field, and I'm sure there were one or two other beast athletes on that team whose quality and soccer IQ didn't show because most of the team is incapable of playing a solid positional and tactical game. Even if you look at the U20's WC disaster, three of the best players in the world are Davidson, Macario and Pugh, none of whom played. The future of the WNT looks safe, even if the U17 coach is a moron.
 
Is that the same excuse that the Mexicans are using for their showing in the U17 WWC? That the players playing for American Club teams aren't able to get down to Mexico enough to spend quality time training with their Mexican counterparts? Oh...wait...nevermind... They aren't making excuses. They don't need to.
 
Is that the same excuse that the Mexicans are using for their showing in the U17 WWC? That the players playing for American Club teams aren't able to get down to Mexico enough to spend quality time training with their Mexican counterparts? Oh...wait...nevermind... They aren't making excuses. They don't need to.
IDK, after watching them next to Spain it wasn't even close.
 
Agreed but I don't see Spain making excuses either. Do you think Pina takes a leave of absence from her Barca team to go do "positional training" with the other U17s scattered about? Only argument you could make is that that Spain is smaller so logistically, it would be easier but even that doesn't work. We fly here which would get us across the country faster than the train from Barcelona to Madrid...

Either way, point is that USWNT is not safe as the rest of the world (using that term liberally) has caught up and are prepared to accelerate past us.
 
It would seem to me that it would be very hard to identify players that are capable of playing possession/positional soccer if they are on a team that does not play that style.
 
Agreed but I don't see Spain making excuses either. Do you think Pina takes a leave of absence from her Barca team to go do "positional training" with the other U17s scattered about? Only argument you could make is that that Spain is smaller so logistically, it would be easier but even that doesn't work. We fly here which would get us across the country faster than the train from Barcelona to Madrid...

Either way, point is that USWNT is not safe as the rest of the world (using that term liberally) has caught up and are prepared to accelerate past us.
Why do you think we have had as much success as we have? Pure athleticism? The females and their programs of other countries put on the back burner?
 
Agreed but I don't see Spain making excuses either. Do you think Pina takes a leave of absence from her Barca team to go do "positional training" with the other U17s scattered about? Only argument you could make is that that Spain is smaller so logistically, it would be easier but even that doesn't work. We fly here which would get us across the country faster than the train from Barcelona to Madrid...

Either way, point is that USWNT is not safe as the rest of the world (using that term liberally) has caught up and are prepared to accelerate past us.

Yes, winning the last WC and going undefeated over the last 18 months is definitely proof that the world has caught up to our WNT and is accelerating past us. We are doomed now that Spain has found one U17 who can play. We need to immediately overhaul our entire system to be more like all the other countries that have never had a successful WNT before it is too late.

Good for Mexico and Spain's U17s. In 10 years they'll all be hanging out in bars acting out various Spanish language iterations of Bruce Springsteen's Glory Days.
 
Back
Top