ECNL. The C stands for Cartel

Not to turn this is into a pay or play argument, but dems fighting words. The USWNT has been slipping for a while and the rest of the world (well, Europe and a few others) have caught up because they focused on building out an academy system. The US days of dominance are now over, and while the US may very well be a power even with pay to play, it will continue to slip as long as we don't recreate an academy system.

On the boys side, football and basketball are not equivalent. Basketball has a gate keeper where height is required while soccer does not (see Messi). Football is a low skilled sport for most positions (QB, receiver and certain other positions exempted) and conditioning is way more important than technical skills as is being top heavy. While it is true that there is some talent left on the table due to basketball and football, given the US sports population dwarfs even a Croatia or Uruguay, that's just an excuse. The real reasons are multifaceted including: a) our academy system is subpar and recruitment is late in the game in comparison to Europe, b) for the best training we have to send players to Europe but for immigration reasons that's difficult to do, c) our well has somewhat been poisoned by two other countries that also have some difficulty, namely England and Mexico, d) pay to play makes it a rich man's sport where talent ID worldwide has been traditionally among working class people, e) the reason for d. is because the academic track is less risky and more lucrative over the long run, when discounted for probability, than a long shot at Europe or an MLS career that pays $80K+ per year, e) our tradition of soccer is a relatively short one and we are only beginning to see some relative fruits now with the Zers and lower millenials...it won't reach full saturation until those kids have kids, f) certain American cultural traits including an aversion to games which don't reward merit and instead punish mistakes, g) America's size which makes it difficult for top talent to play top talent and weather patterns which disrupt the ability to hold continuous training and h) that our governance boards are involved into multifaceted turf wars instead of coming up with an organized pyramid to properly identify and sort talent.

The rest of the world is catching up because of how the USWNT scouts. Same kids consistently called in, not a lot of variation, lifers on the Women’s National team…example…Rapino had no business being on the WC Roster and I would argue Morgan…a forward who did not score a goal. Look at UNC and Florida State…UNC’s dominance is over…they have historically gotten the best athletes and have out Athleted the competition, same as the Women’s National Team has done…not always the best players or pieces to build a team. The best athletes. It’s our arrogance that has caused the decline, not the available talent.

I do agree the investment in Women’s sports across the globe, makes a difference, but the USWNT is an arrogance issue more than anything else IMHO.

Could you imagine a 6’9 Goalkeeper, with Body Control, Speed, and a…Actually there have been a few American Football players that played Soccer…the speed and athleticism.

The model is not changing…too much money involved, how do you tweak it to get better results.

I agree about the pay…soccer is not lucrative in the us unless you come from overseas.

I doubt the US Men’s will win a WC in my lifetime…hope, I am wrong, but the women will win a few more.

Why are the women succeeding with the same model and the men are not? I think it is cultural, and better opportunities for the better men’s athletes.

None of the Women’s Sporting Leagues make money…WNBA, NWSL, etc. why is that?

I enjoy Women’s Soccer, WNBA…insufferable to watch IMHO…not a good product.
 
Could you imagine a 6’9 Goalkeeper, with Body Control, Speed, and a…Actually there have been a few American Football players that played Soccer…the speed and athleticism.
Tifo football did a study on goalkeepers. It found that the ideal size for a goalkeeper is somewhere between 6'1'' and 6' 3'' (though it varies a bit based on body shape). Any less, and the keeper's wingspan and therefore ability to cover the entire goal drops off somewhere. Any taller and it actually impacts the ability to go for lower driven balls.
 
Football is a low skilled sport for most positions (QB, receiver and certain other positions exempted)

OK, so which positions in football are unskilled? Are we talking youth sports, or the top of the sport itself? Top 1% of youth sports, or the vast majority? Each clarification will lead to a different answer, but the objective answer is that 99% of youth soccer players in the US are unskilled, at every position. Same goes for most other sports. If you are talking about the top 1% and higher of any sport at the amateur level, each position is vied for by others that might be better/faster/stronger/more committed. If you are talking about the pro level, the market has decided this in the US (and therefore much of the world), decades ago.

Of course sports have some different physical requirements, and like tennis and baseball, soccer is more welcoming of different body types. But by no means does that make its players more skill-based than other sports, football inclusive.
 
OK, so which positions in football are unskilled? Are we talking youth sports, or the top of the sport itself? Top 1% of youth sports, or the vast majority? Each clarification will lead to a different answer, but the objective answer is that 99% of youth soccer players in the US are unskilled, at every position. Same goes for most other sports. If you are talking about the top 1% and higher of any sport at the amateur level, each position is vied for by others that might be better/faster/stronger/more committed. If you are talking about the pro level, the market has decided this in the US (and therefore much of the world), decades ago.

Of course sports have some different physical requirements, and like tennis and baseball, soccer is more welcoming of different body types. But by no means does that make its players more skill-based than other sports, football inclusive.
Oh come on. There ain't a whole lot of technical training the linemen need to master. It's more about just being big. Yes, some positions require more skill than others and I would classify the QB as "high skilled" (unless you've been doing it since you were little, it's unlikely you are walking on at a top 20 high school in Socal let alone Texas). Obviously the pros require more training than D7 high school in SoCal, but excluding certain positions (such as the QB), football is generally a much lower skilled sport than hockey, soccer, tennis, ice skating, gymnastics, water polo or even golf. Other than the QB position, an athletic individual with the right body type can jump in, many positions without too much effort, and make a career of it at a top 40 SoCal high school. Could they do it at college? Outside the the linesmen and maybe the kicker if they do soccer, probably not. The same is not true for a wonder athlete stepping onto the field and getting on an MLS squad as a freshman without prior experience. It doesn't mean that it's a no skill sport...just that the technical thresholds are much much lower and outside of the QB position it's a far easier sport to technically pick up....by contrast, the conditioning required, even for the right body type, is much more severe.
 
So you're defining skill by how many hours someone has to put in to be the good at something, or be the best at something? For the top of most sports - you need the right body type, aptitude, and the reality that you are better than most everybody at what you are trying to accomplish on the field. Whether that's the QB or the left tackle. Of course you can't be a lineman if you don't have the right body type, and of course there may only be dozens of things you need to do well instead of hundreds. But defining any of the responsibilities as high-skill or low-skill is either patronizing or uninformed. I appreciate that the conditioning requirements, and the spread of time between technical training and broad conditioning is going to vary across sports - but again, using skill (either needed or learned) as the variable is either a fault of language or a fault of understanding.
 
I'm probably sensitive to this only because there have been very recent discussions at home (for an average sized kid playing varsity football as a sophomore). Our high school has had some NFL players over the years, and one of them won the Super Bowl a few years ago. His position is a lineman, and the coach (the same one for decades) likes to talk about his stats in high school. It was insane, in that he was one of the leading scorers as well, causing untold numbers of turnovers (when playing defense), and running the ball and scoring more than anyone had a right to (on offense). In fact, he was one of the few to score points in the NFL from that position, and the announcers went back and shared how he used to do that all the time earlier in his career - both in high school and college. The level of both athleticism and technical skill at every position on the field is beyond comprehension for most, and if it isn't, they won't last long as someone else will very quickly take their place.
 
I'm probably sensitive to this only because there have been very recent discussions at home (for an average sized kid playing varsity football as a sophomore). Our high school has had some NFL players over the years, and one of them won the Super Bowl a few years ago. His position is a lineman, and the coach (the same one for decades) likes to talk about his stats in high school. It was insane, in that he was one of the leading scorers as well, causing untold numbers of turnovers (when playing defense), and running the ball and scoring more than anyone had a right to (on offense). In fact, he was one of the few to score points in the NFL from that position, and the announcers went back and shared how he used to do that all the time earlier in his career - both in high school and college. The level of both athleticism and technical skill at every position on the field is beyond comprehension for most, and if it isn't, they won't last long as someone else will very quickly take their place.
Fair. I'd venture to say though that athleticism, after body type, is far more important in gridiron football than soccer. Conversely, that doesn't mean that soccer players are unfit...you can't play 90+ minutes on the field if you are unfit. Just that (again varied by position and by level), soccer is a much more technically demanding sport that just takes more years to learn (similarly, unless you skate well, you ain't being a hockey player) than football, while body type is much more important in gridiron football than soccer. Certain caveats (such as QB) etc etc.
 
So you're defining skill by how many hours someone has to put in to be the good at something, or be the best at something? For the top of most sports - you need the right body type, aptitude, and the reality that you are better than most everybody at what you are trying to accomplish on the field. Whether that's the QB or the left tackle. Of course you can't be a lineman if you don't have the right body type, and of course there may only be dozens of things you need to do well instead of hundreds. But defining any of the responsibilities as high-skill or low-skill is either patronizing or uninformed. I appreciate that the conditioning requirements, and the spread of time between technical training and broad conditioning is going to vary across sports - but again, using skill (either needed or learned) as the variable is either a fault of language or a fault of understanding.
Absolutely skill difficulty is a question of how many hours you have to put into it. Much like money for value, time is really the only razor you can you across disciplines to come up with how hard something is, whether a video game, musical instrument, academic subject or sport. I've already rebutted the uninformed part: there's no way my nephew walks on as a DE with no prior experience as a freshmen in a top 20 socal school v. an MLS Next program, and I've also gotten to compare how much and what training they do (the practical reality is because of the wear and tear on the body, football players can't get as much scrimmage or in game practice as soccer players either...7v7 football will develop some skills a. that's incomplete, and b. it's only certain positions). As to patronizing, it's a factual reality...no more patronizing than saying McDonald's is cheaper than Morton's or that checkers is less skilled than chess.....that say more about you actually than it does me....I'm not passing any moral judgement here.
 
Tifo football did a study on goalkeepers. It found that the ideal size for a goalkeeper is somewhere between 6'1'' and 6' 3'' (though it varies a bit based on body shape). Any less, and the keeper's wingspan and therefore ability to cover the entire goal drops off somewhere. Any taller and it actually impacts the ability to go for lower driven balls.

Maybe…Dennis Rodman in his prime…could you imagine him on corners, or him closing on you in a 1v1 situation, K-Save…How much could he cover…6’9 covers a lot of the frame, is intimidating, etc…also, a lot of the foot work in BBall and VBall are similar to GK’s.
 
Absolutely skill difficulty is a question of how many hours you have to put into it. Much like money for value, time is really the only razor you can you across disciplines to come up with how hard something is, whether a video game, musical instrument, academic subject or sport. I've already rebutted the uninformed part: there's no way my nephew walks on as a DE with no prior experience as a freshmen in a top 20 socal school v. an MLS Next program, and I've also gotten to compare how much and what training they do (the practical reality is because of the wear and tear on the body, football players can't get as much scrimmage or in game practice as soccer players either...7v7 football will develop some skills a. that's incomplete, and b. it's only certain positions). As to patronizing, it's a factual reality...no more patronizing than saying McDonald's is cheaper than Morton's or that checkers is less skilled than chess.....that say more about you actually than it does me....I'm not passing any moral judgement here.

Completely disagree, but understandable why you feel that way. Time is not the only razor to judge skill, and is a lazy way to judge how much effort is put in to a task. Much like lawyers (or mechanics) billing by the hour, whether the hour is incredibly useful or completely pointless - they are all incorrectly assumed to be identical. It is coarsely measuring the effort put in - and not the output that one is actually being judged on. Is the problem solved. Is the player any good. It doesn't matter that the benchwarmer has been doing this for 10 years and has put in thousands of hours, if the standout player started 2 years ago and puts in a third of the time. If they are making a difference on the team and the benchwarmer isn't - the standout is the more skilled player. This definition of skill can be applied to whether an individual is more skilled than another, or whether a role/position can be assessed by a knowledgeable party as needing certain types of skills. Equating skill to hours is only done when someone has no idea about what the skill actually is.

You haven't rebutted the lack of football understanding in any way. You have listed an unnamed relative playing for an unnamed school that may or may not be any good at anything. Your lack of understanding of football comes through in your posts, where it once again devolves into a rant about steroids because your kid is tiny. The lack of understanding calls into question how authoritatively you speak on soccer, and it sure seems appropriate to fact-check that much closer than has been done in the past here.
 
Completely disagree, but understandable why you feel that way. Time is not the only razor to judge skill, and is a lazy way to judge how much effort is put in to a task. Much like lawyers (or mechanics) billing by the hour, whether the hour is incredibly useful or completely pointless - they are all incorrectly assumed to be identical. It is coarsely measuring the effort put in - and not the output that one is actually being judged on. Is the problem solved. Is the player any good. It doesn't matter that the benchwarmer has been doing this for 10 years and has put in thousands of hours, if the standout player started 2 years ago and puts in a third of the time. If they are making a difference on the team and the benchwarmer isn't - the standout is the more skilled player. This definition of skill can be applied to whether an individual is more skilled than another, or whether a role/position can be assessed by a knowledgeable party as needing certain types of skills. Equating skill to hours is only done when someone has no idea about what the skill actually is.

You haven't rebutted the lack of football understanding in any way. You have listed an unnamed relative playing for an unnamed school that may or may not be any good at anything. Your lack of understanding of football comes through in your posts, where it once again devolves into a rant about steroids because your kid is tiny. The lack of understanding calls into question how authoritatively you speak on soccer, and it sure seems appropriate to fact-check that much closer than has been done in the past here.
Wow I really touched a nerve huh? Lashing out a bit? Not sure what the issue with your kid is and I’m sorry if it hurt your feelings. No moral judgment is intended. It doesn’t make football a lesser sport…just a less technical one. In any case as I said I’ve gotten an intimate peak into that world and it’s not some random family member but my nephew who is in fact playing de for a top 20 SoCal high school program, varsity as a sophomore. I can assure you he got the position through no prior training on his part and almost exclusively due to his height and physique.

you are free to disagree but I’m not pulling out the time thing out of my ass. 1. It’s a razor. You are quite correct that quality matters but that’s not the function of a razor and 2. Over time that quality evens out given a long enough time horizon. Based on the work of Ericsson and Gladwell and covered in the soccernomics stuff too. It’s where the entire 10,000 hours thing came from.
 
It's good that you understand soccer - but you are way out of your lane if you really believe what you shared above.
A great deal can be argued on this topic, but here's a kid who played ZERO football in high school, yet got a football scholarship to play at UCLA. So Grace T. has a point. There are many positions in football that require the right body type (i.e., huge to massive) far more than developed skills.
 
The rest of the world is catching up because of how the USWNT scouts. Same kids consistently called in, not a lot of variation, lifers on the Women’s National team…example…Rapino had no business being on the WC Roster and I would argue Morgan…a forward who did not score a goal. Look at UNC and Florida State…UNC’s dominance is over…they have historically gotten the best athletes and have out Athleted the competition, same as the Women’s National Team has done…not always the best players or pieces to build a team. The best athletes. It’s our arrogance that has caused the decline, not the available talent.

I do agree the investment in Women’s sports across the globe, makes a difference, but the USWNT is an arrogance issue more than anything else IMHO.

Could you imagine a 6’9 Goalkeeper, with Body Control, Speed, and a…Actually there have been a few American Football players that played Soccer…the speed and athleticism.

The model is not changing…too much money involved, how do you tweak it to get better results.

I agree about the pay…soccer is not lucrative in the us unless you come from overseas.

I doubt the US Men’s will win a WC in my lifetime…hope, I am wrong, but the women will win a few more.

Why are the women succeeding with the same model and the men are not? I think it is cultural, and better opportunities for the better men’s athletes.

None of the Women’s Sporting Leagues make money…WNBA, NWSL, etc. why is that?

I enjoy Women’s Soccer, WNBA…insufferable to watch IMHO…not a good product.
The rest of the world has passed the UNWNT because the youth soccer > college > NT model that the US had, along with the huge number of players versus other countries is not a good development path. The top countries (Europe primarily) follow the youth> academy > pro > NT path. That trumps and will trump the US model. The USWNT has to mirror that. They will still be competitive but they are losing ground now and will continue to unless they fix that.
 
Maybe…Dennis Rodman in his prime…could you imagine him on corners, or him closing on you in a 1v1 situation, K-Save…How much could he cover…6’9 covers a lot of the frame, is intimidating, etc…also, a lot of the foot work in BBall and VBall are similar to GK’s.
There's a reason the vast majority of goalkeepers are not inordinately tall. Its not like the soccer "superpowers" don't have tall people in their countries or the mega clubs can't recruit tall people for GK. Soccer has only been organized for like 140 years, you'd think someone might have tweaked that having super tall keepers was an advantage ... or maybe not so much so!
 
I played a little bit of American football when I was younger. The hardest thing I remember was memorizing all the plays and where your position needs to be for any one of them. There's some technique and repetition -- but not nearly at the same level soccer requires at the higher levels. There are other challenges that American football has. Heck we've seen several pro rugby players try and make the move. I don't think that's played out well.
 
Fine, switched back to ECNL
Maybe instead of just assuming one league is "better" than another you should try to understand why a player or parent might choose one league or the other.

- Both ECNL and GA Southwest leagues have 2-3 AZ teams. This means travel for both leagues is nearly identical.
- Both ECNL and GA have Good and Bad teams. In ECNL there's 4-5 top teams in Socal/AZ in GA theres 2 top teams in Socal/AZ.
- Top ECNL and GA Socal teams play each other in big events like Surf Cup yearly.
- Unofficially top ECNL and GA clubs often host club to club friendlies. (You just don't hear about it that much because people don't talk about it)
- Some ECNL and GA clubs have crappy fields + coaches.
- Some ECNL and GA clubs have really good fields and coaches.

Don't you think that if your kid is good enough to play D1 soccer recruiters will be able to tell regardless of the league they're playing in?
 
The rest of the world has passed the UNWNT because the youth soccer > college > NT model that the US had, along with the huge number of players versus other countries is not a good development path. The top countries (Europe primarily) follow the youth> academy > pro > NT path. That trumps and will trump the US model. The USWNT has to mirror that. They will still be competitive but they are losing ground now and will continue to unless they fix that.

Why would the US mirror that? What women’s league is better than the NWSL? Women’s Premier League? Women’s Bundesliga? Just because the US did not win this year, does not mean they have been surpassed. We don’t have a talent problem. We have a leadership and arrogance problem…lifers on the WNT…have you watched womens college soccer this year? There are some beasts out there, and have been beasts out there for years…there are also current young players on the roster or periphery that need to play…holding onto early-mid 30’s players who have passed their prime is not a model for success. A lot involved, marketing, licensing deals with players by sponsors all kinds of things keeping the model in the US the way it is. Pro Women’s Soccer, not a lot of money…Get an education it will serve the vast majority so much better in the long run. What is the plan after soccer…just another 50+ years of life to account for.
 
There's a reason the vast majority of goalkeepers are not inordinately tall. Its not like the soccer "superpowers" don't have tall people in their countries or the mega clubs can't recruit tall people for GK. Soccer has only been organized for like 140 years, you'd think someone might have tweaked that having super tall keepers was an advantage ... or maybe not so much so!

There are many GK’s playing now that are 6’4, 6’5, 6’6. It’s not all about height, it’s the total package…I’m not suggesting putting 6’9 dufuss out there, I’m talking about a world class athlete that happens to be tall. My argument is that soccer in the US does acquire the best athletes and that they gravitate to other sports. Basketball players in my opinion are probably the best all around athletes out there.

Tyreek Hill…Imagine him as a winger…the speed. Our best athletes in the US do not play soccer. They play football, basketball, and even baseball. In other countries, they play soccer. It’s a soccer first culture. Do we have good soccer players, yes, do we have some great ones, a few. On the Men’s we lose to countries with populations less than the size of LA County…we have 330 Million people and lose to countries with 10 Million or less. We can talk coaching, academies, pay to play, etc., etc., but at the end of the day our BEST athletes do not play the sport. If you don’t have the best athletes/players participating then you better have the best coaching, infrastructure, and methods. Which we do not…we have Triple G managing, and he is not considered in any circles a world class manager.
 
There are many GK’s playing now that are 6’4, 6’5, 6’6. It’s not all about height, it’s the total package…I’m not suggesting putting 6’9 dufuss out there, I’m talking about a world class athlete that happens to be tall. My argument is that soccer in the US does acquire the best athletes and that they gravitate to other sports. Basketball players in my opinion are probably the best all around athletes out there.

Tyreek Hill…Imagine him as a winger…the speed. Our best athletes in the US do not play soccer. They play football, basketball, and even baseball. In other countries, they play soccer. It’s a soccer first culture. Do we have good soccer players, yes, do we have some great ones, a few. On the Men’s we lose to countries with populations less than the size of LA County…we have 330 Million people and lose to countries with 10 Million or less. We can talk coaching, academies, pay to play, etc., etc., but at the end of the day our BEST athletes do not play the sport. If you don’t have the best athletes/players participating then you better have the best coaching, infrastructure, and methods. Which we do not…we have Triple G managing, and he is not considered in any circles a world class manager.
The Tifo study was done in response to noticing that EPL and Champions goalkeepers are getting bigger. The study argued that managers were committing a fallacy by assuming bigger is better, because it involves a trade off of being able to get to lower cut shots. The speculation was that managers were doing this because of crosses, but the rebuttal was that corners have gotten a lot less lethal and the grounded cross is now preferred to the aerial one (perhaps in response to this trend or perhaps in response to CBs also getting bigger). It is perfectly plausible that a Dennis Rodman would be a beast at goalkeeper, just like it doesn't follow that because Rimando was less than the ideal height he wasn't effective.

I think there is some truth to the notion that the US would be more effective if our best athletes played soccer. In particular, the African American community is woefully underrepresented (which is both a function of culture and of pay or play, given the $ investment it required to get good v. football or even basketball (given the pickup opportunities)). BUT, give our huge population, it doesn't explain why the US underperforms some countries like Uruguay, Moroccos (despite the rankings), Portugal and the Netherlands. The player pool even after shaving off football (which isn't a 1 to 1 correlation...you are talking the QBs and receivers here) and basketball (again not 1 to 1 as you'd have to throw out centers and other larger players) is huge v. those smaller countries. Bottom line is our system is designed to produce college players, not pro athletes capable of carrying national teams. Other countries simply don't have the college athletics route...until you nuke that, you aren't going to fully fix the problem, only improve it.
 
Back
Top