How Not to Scout for Soccer Talent
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/561707/?__twitter_impression=true
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/561707/?__twitter_impression=true
Great piece. Thanks for sharing.How Not to Scout for Soccer Talent
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/561707/?__twitter_impression=true
Wow. Maybe we should just tweek the system we have that produces educated young adults and soccer players instead of trying to emulate Europe.
My take-away from the article is that we should consider the value of de-regulation and rolling back the over-structuring of children's games. It is a pipe-dream, of course, but I would bet you my salary that doing so would not alter the outcomes of national team/professional talent even one iota. Messi would be Messi in any environment (as long as he's got a chance to fall in love with the game in the first place) so trying to rig a system up to make and find another Messi is a waste of time and money.Well, do we want a system that produces world class national teams or one that produces college players? Do we want a system that tracks talent early (at the expense of those that wash out) or one that allows for flexibility of late bloomers? Do we want a system that tries to educate everyone, or one that rigorously promotes merit (though Europe also does a healthy dose of classism)? And they don't just do it with soccer....they do it with education too by limiting who gets access to a university education and what services are provided with a college education. There isn't an aspiration for everyone to go to college in Europe, and if there wasn't the safety net of American education (both for washed out sports players and upper middle class students) there would be a revolt among the elites and professional classes in Europe (and increasingly Asia as well).
Further, what I'm learning by watching and studying youth soccer in this country is that the error in your premise is "a system that produces . . ." The "system" doesn't produce anything (except profits for people invested in it). It's a myth.Well, do we want a system that produces world class national teams or one that produces college players? Do we want a system that tracks talent early (at the expense of those that wash out) or one that allows for flexibility of late bloomers? Do we want a system that tries to educate everyone, or one that rigorously promotes merit (though Europe also does a healthy dose of classism)? And they don't just do it with soccer....they do it with education too by limiting who gets access to a university education and what services are provided with a college education. There isn't an aspiration for everyone to go to college in Europe, and if there wasn't the safety net of American education (both for washed out sports players and upper middle class students) there would be a revolt among the elites and professional classes in Europe (and increasingly Asia as well).
Further, what I'm learning by watching and studying youth soccer in this country is that the error in your premise is "a system that produces . . ." The "system" doesn't produce anything (except profits for people invested in it). It's a myth.
Fair but it's also a difference between intentions and outcomes. The European system intends to produce world class players capable of playing on the professional and world cup level. Whether it does so is another argument. The American system intends primarily to produce players for college. Whether it effectively does so is also another argument. The intentions are used to design the system, which may or may not work, and which may or may not produce unintended consequences (which as we see from the article, even the European system creates....it's not a panacea). The first question is always "what do we want?"
Agreed. And what I would say, (if the Futbol Gods were to grant me the omnipotent powers to make it all so) is that we want to spread the visibility and accessibility of the game into the places where our best athletic talent can organically grow the game. Think of it on two fronts. The more our population (especially large inner city populations) watch high level soccer, the more it will become popular. Forget selling the MLS. We've got to sell the kids who might normally aspire to being Michael Jordan, LeBron, or Odell Beckham, Russell Wilson, etc., a star like Ronaldo or Bale or Messi or Lukaku. It's been a misconception that we need an American star to inspire our population. We don't. Americans don't want to "be like Lukaku" because they don't know who the hell he is. Not because he's from another country. Because his games are on at 8am on some obscure NBC Sports 2 channel. It's getting better, but for the most part, that penetration is happening in the middle-upper class suburbs where satellite TV and high-speed internet connections allow new casual American fans to develop an appreciation of their talents. So one is targeted marketing of The Sport or of The Players. Not of just a particular league. The other aspect is to provide safe places for kids to go play. Invest in fields in the inner cities. Just roll out the ball and watch. It's a slow approach, for sure, but if it were as easy to find places to play soccer in Chicago or Memphis or Houston or New York as it is to find a basketball court, it would be a start. DA leagues, ECNL, National Leauges, pay-to-play clubs, and all the pathways and training systems that money can buy don't have ANY significant impact on producing more (or better versions) of the .001%-ers that make up national team rosters. It's our obsession with results that screws this whole thing up. We're so focused on results, i.e. how our national team does, how many pro players we can "produce" or how many college scholarships our club "produces," that we ignore the obvious: The game doesn't have the passionate dedication of the population. The way you get that is by making the greats of the game visible and accessible. And by making the game accessible for more people. And you do that by bringing the fun and ease of this game back to the forefront and take all the money making schemes out of the youth levels. I'd argue that AYSO does a better job of growing the game by far than all the high-level "A" licensed club DoC's in all of club soccer combined.The first question is always "what do we want?"
Agreed. And what I would say, (if the Futbol Gods were to grant me the omnipotent powers to make it all so) is that we want to spread the visibility and accessibility of the game into the places where our best athletic talent can organically grow the game. Think of it on two fronts. The more our population (especially large inner city populations) watch high level soccer, the more it will become popular. Forget selling the MLS. We've got to sell the kids who might normally aspire to being Michael Jordan, LeBron, or Odell Beckham, Russell Wilson, etc., a star like Ronaldo or Bale or Messi or Lukaku. It's been a misconception that we need an American star to inspire our population. We don't. Americans don't want to "be like Lukaku" because they don't know who the hell he is. Not because he's from another country. Because his games are on at 8am on some obscure NBC Sports 2 channel. It's getting better, but for the most part, that penetration is happening in the middle-upper class suburbs where satellite TV and high-speed internet connections allow new casual American fans to develop an appreciation of their talents. So one is targeted marketing of The Sport or of The Players. Not of just a particular league. The other aspect is to provide safe places for kids to go play. Invest in fields in the inner cities. Just roll out the ball and watch. It's a slow approach, for sure, but if it were as easy to find places to play soccer in Chicago or Memphis or Houston or New York as it is to find a basketball court, it would be a start. DA leagues, ECNL, National Leauges, pay-to-play clubs, and all the pathways and training systems that money can buy don't have ANY significant impact on producing more (or better versions) of the .001%-ers that make up national team rosters. It's our obsession with results that screws this whole thing up. We're so focused on results, i.e. how our national team does, how many pro players we can "produce" or how many college scholarships our club "produces," that we ignore the obvious: The game doesn't have the passionate dedication of the population. The way you get that is by making the greats of the game visible and accessible. And by making the game accessible for more people. And you do that by bringing the fun and ease of this game back to the forefront and take all the money making schemes out of the youth levels. I'd argue that AYSO does a better job of growing the game by far than all the high-level "A" licensed club DoC's in all of club soccer combined.
If Michael Jordan had been born in Ghana, but still had NBA and NCAA basketball games on TV in primetime and still had scads of courts to play on and other players to play against, he would have still made it to the NBA, and likely would still have turned out to be one of the greatest of all time. Even his coaches would agree. Now, if he'd been born in Ghana, but the game wasn't available to be seen easily or followed, or nobody else played it with him, but soccer was the only sport he was exposed to, he'd probably have ended up being a decent field player or very good goalkeeper somewhere. Maybe even a great one. But the only reason he wouldn't have become MJ the GOAT, is because the basketball wasn't accessible. You can't look at these exceptional stars and set out to either "find" them or "create" them with some sort of system. Systems don't make these guys. You just have to open the door and they are going to walk through it eventually on their own. So if you know that, then why try to design anything around finding them?? It's obvious then, that we need to focus on all the people who AREN'T going to go pro and tailor the structure of our strategy around what is going to be best for them.
Someone built like MJ, Kevin Durant, Lebron, Dirk- They are made to be a basketball player and likely wouldn’t be great soccer players.
But there are lots of kids with insane basketball skills and insane athleticism- who will never grow to be taller than 6’. The Spud Webb and Mugsy Bogues anomalies aside- those kids (and their parents) might be better off looking at soccer if they want to be a pro athlete.