Soccer is the MOST subjective sport for talent ID

oh canada

oh canada

GOLD
Now that we have sports agents and invested companies picking "the ones" at middle school ages, I started to think whether any other sport is more subjective about choosing the "haves" and the "have nots", easily opening itself up to accusations of favoritism, bias and/or preference. At the top, (Ronaldo, et al) it is easy to judge the creme of the creme. But in the middle professionals and in the top-level youth leagues, soccer has the least, if any, objective criteria to judge talent.

Individual sports make it easy -- the fastest time, the best score, the winner in a head-to-head match -- all of these results simplify the ranking process in sports like tennis, golf, running, swimming, and even gymnastics and ice skating where certain moves are given points if accomplished (or fractions thereof).

Well, what about other team sports. Baseball has batting averages, strikes/balls, mph and many other statistics to judge. Football does too -- many metrics at the combine (40yrd dash, shuttle runs) and in games we have tackles, yards gained, interceptions, etc. Basketball is easy too because there is so much scoring--points, rebounds, assists etc.-- and most all defense is played 1v1. Even my beloved hockey can use goals scored, assists and the like because there's only 6 players on the ice and almost all are involved in both scoring and assisting. Even the enforcing defenders can be judged by how hard they hit the other players and take guys out of the game. Nothing easier to judge a winner and a loser than a boxing match on ice--who goes down first.

So what do we use to judge one soccer player from another? Ok, maybe the striker position can count goals, but with 1 or 2 in a game on average, that's not very many. And who's to say that Chicharito would have scored that ball when Harry Kane didn't? Passes completed is sometimes discussed but its such an inaccurate metric with so many variables. Soccer evaluation ends up sounding like, "oh yeah that player has some good skills; he's creative; makes good runs off the ball; she makes quick decisions; etc." It's impossible to compare really. Some may say, "oh, you just know." I don't buy it. I think with every player evaluation and comparison, soccer, more than any other sport, requires a decision based on intangibles. And why it can be frustrating for players competing for the same spot/team, and those that watch from afar.

If we are now at a point where sports agents and Nike are heavily influencing the choices of players that we watch on TV, I'm afraid we will be watching the continued decline of US mens and womens soccer, as players are chosen by their most important criteria...how many shoes they can sell.
 
Soccer at its finest is more of an art than those other sports. It’s impossible to definitively say that one masterpiece is “better” than the other. It will never come down to simple metrics when evaluating art.
(I just made this up, but I’m going with it )
 
One thing we know is that soccer is an international sport where the USA is way down the list. Its selections for the youth, already difficult as this forum points out, are generally based on less important factors than the selections that better soccer countries make. So we end up not developing our best soccer talent, because our scouts focus on the wrong traits. As the American public’s knowledge and interest in soccer grows, we will likely demand to be more competitive on the international stage (I mean, we are really bad), so maybe we will find development coaches and scouts that start seeking different characteristics for players to be developed for the national team.
 
oh canada said:
Now that we have sports agents and invested companies picking "the ones" at middle school ages, I started to think whether any other sport is more subjective about choosing the "haves" and the "have nots", easily opening itself up to accusations of favoritism, bias and/or preference. At the top, (Ronaldo, et al) it is easy to judge the creme of the creme. But in the middle professionals and in the top-level youth leagues, soccer has the least, if any, objective criteria to judge talent.

Individual sports make it easy -- the fastest time, the best score, the winner in a head-to-head match -- all of these results simplify the ranking process in sports like tennis, golf, running, swimming, and even gymnastics and ice skating where certain moves are given points if accomplished (or fractions thereof).

Well, what about other team sports. Baseball has batting averages, strikes/balls, mph and many other statistics to judge. Football does too -- many metrics at the combine (40yrd dash, shuttle runs) and in games we have tackles, yards gained, interceptions, etc. Basketball is easy too because there is so much scoring--points, rebounds, assists etc.-- and most all defense is played 1v1. Even my beloved hockey can use goals scored, assists and the like because there's only 6 players on the ice and almost all are involved in both scoring and assisting. Even the enforcing defenders can be judged by how hard they hit the other players and take guys out of the game. Nothing easier to judge a winner and a loser than a boxing match on ice--who goes down first.

So what do we use to judge one soccer player from another? Ok, maybe the striker position can count goals, but with 1 or 2 in a game on average, that's not very many. And who's to say that Chicharito would have scored that ball when Harry Kane didn't? Passes completed is sometimes discussed but its such an inaccurate metric with so many variables. Soccer evaluation ends up sounding like, "oh yeah that player has some good skills; he's creative; makes good runs off the ball; she makes quick decisions; etc." It's impossible to compare really. Some may say, "oh, you just know." I don't buy it. I think with every player evaluation and comparison, soccer, more than any other sport, requires a decision based on intangibles. And why it can be frustrating for players competing for the same spot/team, and those that watch from afar.

If we are now at a point where sports agents and Nike are heavily influencing the choices of players that we watch on TV, I'm afraid we will be watching the continued decline of US mens and womens soccer, as players are chosen by their most important criteria...how many shoes they can sell.
Click to expand...
I think you have to first look at tactics to answer that question. Historically, in the US we have played “kickball” with great athletes. For our women’s side kickball was adequate because the rest of the world was so sexist and generally didn’t support female participation in soccer. Now that these great soccer nations are integrating their females in the game, we are getting the brakes beat off of us at the younger age groups.
As of now, we do not have many that are capable of playing true possession soccer. In our GDA it’s a rare occurrence to see a team that can consistently connect 3 passes in a row. Too many also have low soccer IQ’s from youth coaches that “joysticked.”
The distinguishing factor now is soccer IQ/ability to find open space and the technical ability to play in system connecting multiple passes while maintaining possession.
 
oh canada said:
Now that we have sports agents and invested companies picking "the ones" at middle school ages, I started to think whether any other sport is more subjective about choosing the "haves" and the "have nots", easily opening itself up to accusations of favoritism, bias and/or preference. At the top, (Ronaldo, et al) it is easy to judge the creme of the creme. But in the middle professionals and in the top-level youth leagues, soccer has the least, if any, objective criteria to judge talent.

Individual sports make it easy -- the fastest time, the best score, the winner in a head-to-head match -- all of these results simplify the ranking process in sports like tennis, golf, running, swimming, and even gymnastics and ice skating where certain moves are given points if accomplished (or fractions thereof).

Well, what about other team sports. Baseball has batting averages, strikes/balls, mph and many other statistics to judge. Football does too -- many metrics at the combine (40yrd dash, shuttle runs) and in games we have tackles, yards gained, interceptions, etc. Basketball is easy too because there is so much scoring--points, rebounds, assists etc.-- and most all defense is played 1v1. Even my beloved hockey can use goals scored, assists and the like because there's only 6 players on the ice and almost all are involved in both scoring and assisting. Even the enforcing defenders can be judged by how hard they hit the other players and take guys out of the game. Nothing easier to judge a winner and a loser than a boxing match on ice--who goes down first.

So what do we use to judge one soccer player from another? Ok, maybe the striker position can count goals, but with 1 or 2 in a game on average, that's not very many. And who's to say that Chicharito would have scored that ball when Harry Kane didn't? Passes completed is sometimes discussed but its such an inaccurate metric with so many variables. Soccer evaluation ends up sounding like, "oh yeah that player has some good skills; he's creative; makes good runs off the ball; she makes quick decisions; etc." It's impossible to compare really. Some may say, "oh, you just know." I don't buy it. I think with every player evaluation and comparison, soccer, more than any other sport, requires a decision based on intangibles. And why it can be frustrating for players competing for the same spot/team, and those that watch from afar.

If we are now at a point where sports agents and Nike are heavily influencing the choices of players that we watch on TV, I'm afraid we will be watching the continued decline of US mens and womens soccer, as players are chosen by their most important criteria...how many shoes they can sell.
Click to expand...

well said. (insert obligatory canadian joke here.) the resistance to measurement/stats within the US soccer community is striking. it's reminiscent of the Moneyball scenes with brad pitt and the scouts.

in basketball, would argue though that they keep stats because it's an accepted part of the culture, not the inherent nature of the game. even with all the scoring, someone has to sit with the video and capture all the different things that are happening.

same challenge with soccer, and w/ Opta and other video services, ww soccer is just starting to do the same. probably in ten years, soccer stats will be standard, the same as it is now in basketball.

in the meantime, there's a unique opportunity for the US soccer to leapfrog other countries and start implementing/leveraging stats now. think 3rd world countries skipping land line telephones - which are legacy in countries like the US - and going straight to wireless.

systematically looking at plus/minus per 90 minutes played would point us in the right direction and help ID key players who are being overlooked. In next gen soccer, where forwards are key defenders and goalies are a key part of the offense, stats are critical path to ID'ing players who can play this type of soccer.

For example, Kante has helped two different teams win the EPL, and helped France win the world cup. What is his key contribution? not goals, not assists. it's # of recovered possessions and then the # of key passes that start the quick counter.

but until Leicester figured this out w/ stats, Kante was ignored as being too small and too lacking in goals/assists to be effective at the EPL level. Per wikipedia, "Kanté remained outside the radar of big teams because of his small stature and selfless style of play."

If the US is smart (a big if), we will look forward, using stats to ID key next gen players. Asking the question, "how do we find the next Messi?" is the wrong question. The better question is "how do we find the next player who can shut down the next Messi?"

To use a canadian/hockey analogy, it's about skating to where the puck is going to be. But, probably, the cultural resistance in US soccer to being smart with stats will keep us from the doing this.
 
Last edited:
Couldn’t agree more with all 5 of you above. Talent ID and true development of those players with high ceilings (IQ and technique) are the main factors holding us back in the sport. So many players that are seen as “special” just aren’t, at all age groups. So many players with true potential are overlooked for perceived weaknesses (small, slow, etc...). Many making these decisions in the US (coaches and scouts) are far behind their counterparts in successful soccer countries.
 
Kante said:
well said. (insert obligatory canadian joke here.) the resistance to measurement/stats within the US soccer community is striking. it's reminiscent of the Moneyball scenes with brad pitt and the scouts.

in basketball, would argue though that they keep stats because it's an accepted part of the culture, not the inherent nature of the game. even with all the scoring, someone has to sit with the video and capture all the different things that are happening.

same challenge with soccer, and w/ Opta and other video services, ww soccer is just starting to do the same. probably in ten years, soccer stats will be standard, the same as it is now in basketball.

in the meantime, there's a unique opportunity for the US soccer to leapfrog other countries and start implementing/leveraging stats now. think 3rd world countries skipping land line telephones - which are legacy in countries like the US - and going straight to wireless.

systematically looking at plus/minus per 90 minutes played would point us in the right direction and help ID key players who are being overlooked. In next gen soccer, where forwards are key defenders and goalies are a key part of the offense, stats are critical path to ID'ing player who can play this type of soccer.

For example, Kante has helped two different teams win the EPL, and helped France win the world cup. What is his key contribution? not goals, not assists. it's # of recovered possessions and then the # of key passes that start the quick counter.

but until Leicester figured this out w/ stats, Kante was ignored as being too small and too lacking in goals/assists to be effective at the EPL level. Per wikipedia, "Kanté remained outside the radar of big teams because of his small stature and selfless style of play."

If the US is smart (a big if), we will look forward, using stats to ID key, next gen players. Asking the question, "how do we find the next Messi?" is the wrong question. The better question is "how do we find the next player who can shutdown the next Messi?"

To use a canadian/hockey analogy, it's about skating to where the puck is going to be. But, probably, the cultural resistance in US soccer to being smart with stats will keep us from the doing this.
Click to expand...
I am relatively certain that there is not any resistance to using actuary science in US soccer. This is why my daughter is studying mathematics just in case things don’t work out on the field.
I think the issue with using actuarial science in soccer is determining how or where not if.
 
What I’ve witnessed over the past few years, since I’ve had a vested interest, is that “talent scouts” (I feel a bit of acid reflux in referring to them as such) are NOT looking for soccer IQ or great soccer players. Even more rare, are they looking for great defenders, distributors or facilitators. (Unless they’re 5’8” or taller). I would say these scouts are moreover “forward finders”, with the idea that they can make them defenders or mids. I would say this goes for YNT, but particularly college scouts. I know this is a generalization and there are exceptions. But, this has been my observation.
 
SBFDad said:
So many players with true potential are overlooked for perceived weaknesses (small, slow, etc...)
Click to expand...
You can be small...but you can't be slow in soccer.

Opta stats are cool to look at and provide good Moneyball-esque stats for professional teams. But that level of stats will never make its way down to the youth level due to the challenge of collecting those stats (you would need somebody to watch a video, slow-mo at times).

Yes, soccer talent selection can be very subjective...one coach's trash is another coach's treasure. But that's the beauty of soccer...there are so many facets and intangibles that can't be tracked on a statsheet that make the difference between a good player and a great player. I knew this one small kid that played at SDSU and I couldn't put my finger on why he was so good...but the best description that somebody made was that he was such an "efficient" player. There's no stat for that but was just an example of how a bunch of little things added up to a very good overall player.
 
Kicknit22 said:
What I’ve witnessed over the past few years, since I’ve had a vested interest, is that “talent scouts” (I feel a bit of acid reflux in referring to them as such) are NOT looking for soccer IQ or great soccer players. Even more rare, are they looking for great defenders, distributors or facilitators. (Unless they’re 5’8” or taller). I would say these scouts are moreover “forward finders”, with the idea that they can make them defenders or mids. I would say this goes for YNT, but particularly college scouts. I know this is a generalization and there are exceptions. But, this has been my observation.
Click to expand...
I agree. However, I suspect the ultimate goal is to have 11 “midfielders” on the field to connect passes and maintain possession.
 
rainbow_unicorn said:
You can be small...but you can't be slow in soccer.

Opta stats are cool to look at and provide good Moneyball-esque stats for professional teams. But that level of stats will never make its way down to the youth level due to the challenge of collecting those stats (you would need somebody to watch a video, slow-mo at times).

Yes, soccer talent selection can be very subjective...one coach's trash is another coach's treasure. But that's the beauty of soccer...there are so many facets and intangibles that can't be tracked on a statsheet that make the difference between a good player and a great player. I knew this one small kid that played at SDSU and I couldn't put my finger on why he was so good...but the best description that somebody made was that he was such an "efficient" player. There's no stat for that but was just an example of how a bunch of little things added up to a very good overall player.
Click to expand...
I hear ya. The key being “perceived”. Talking about IDing for top level play...So many are considered less-than because they aren’t hyper athletes with speed to burn. Compare two players in the same position and US coaches and scouts favor the faster of the two, regardless of other factors with considerably more long term upside...IQ, technique, focus, grit. Speed is a great attribute to have, but too much weight given to it. Similar problem with size. A consideration, especially for GKs and CBs, but it shouldn’t be high on the list of key attributes for most positions.
 
Kante said:
well said. (insert obligatory canadian joke here.) the resistance to measurement/stats within the US soccer community is striking. it's reminiscent of the Moneyball scenes with brad pitt and the scouts.

in basketball, would argue though that they keep stats because it's an accepted part of the culture, not the inherent nature of the game. even with all the scoring, someone has to sit with the video and capture all the different things that are happening.

same challenge with soccer, and w/ Opta and other video services, ww soccer is just starting to do the same. probably in ten years, soccer stats will be standard, the same as it is now in basketball.

in the meantime, there's a unique opportunity for the US soccer to leapfrog other countries and start implementing/leveraging stats now. think 3rd world countries skipping land line telephones - which are legacy in countries like the US - and going straight to wireless.

systematically looking at plus/minus per 90 minutes played would point us in the right direction and help ID key players who are being overlooked. In next gen soccer, where forwards are key defenders and goalies are a key part of the offense, stats are critical path to ID'ing player who can play this type of soccer.

For example, Kante has helped two different teams win the EPL, and helped France win the world cup. What is his key contribution? not goals, not assists. it's # of recovered possessions and then the # of key passes that start the quick counter.

but until Leicester figured this out w/ stats, Kante was ignored as being too small and too lacking in goals/assists to be effective at the EPL level. Per wikipedia, "Kanté remained outside the radar of big teams because of his small stature and selfless style of play."

If the US is smart (a big if), we will look forward, using stats to ID key next gen players. Asking the question, "how do we find the next Messi?" is the wrong question. The better question is "how do we find the next player who can shut down the next Messi?"

To use a canadian/hockey analogy, it's about skating to where the puck is going to be. But, probably, the cultural resistance in US soccer to being smart with stats will keep us from the doing this.
Click to expand...

Plus-minus rating won't make much sense in an environment with static substitution rules.

The current method of determining "possession" is so ill-defined it is meaningless unless the number comes out to be 75-25 or better, but in that case it is so obvious it is useless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top