# How Not to Scout for Soccer Talent



## Vin (Jun 16, 2018)

*How Not to Scout for Soccer Talent*

*https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/561707/?__twitter_impression=true*


----------



## outside! (Jun 17, 2018)

Wow. Maybe we should just tweek the system we have that produces educated young adults and soccer players instead of trying to emulate Europe.


----------



## Overlap (Jun 18, 2018)

interesting read....


----------



## Mystery Train (Jun 22, 2018)

Vin said:


> *How Not to Scout for Soccer Talent*
> 
> *https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/561707/?__twitter_impression=true*


Great piece.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## timbuck (Jun 22, 2018)

I thought this was going to be an article on youth coaches creeping around parking lots asking little kids for their phone numbers.


----------



## Grace T. (Jun 22, 2018)

outside! said:


> Wow. Maybe we should just tweek the system we have that produces educated young adults and soccer players instead of trying to emulate Europe.


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).


----------



## Mystery Train (Jun 22, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> 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).


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.


----------



## Mystery Train (Jun 22, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> 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.


----------



## Grace T. (Jun 22, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> 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?"


----------



## Overlap (Jun 22, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> 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?"


- 1 more scholarship to play in college to get some of the years of club dues back for our youngest!


----------



## Mystery Train (Jun 22, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> 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.


----------



## timbuck (Jun 22, 2018)

It's pretty awesome watching the World Cup without a team to really care about.  I've watched most every game without really caring who wins.
Everyone is looking for the next Messi, Ronaldo, Marcelo, Modric -  Guess what?  Those "soccer crazy" countries aren't spitting out a Messi, Ronaldo, Marcelo or Modric all that often.  You could argue that Spain plays the best soccer of any game I've watched thus far.  And that Germany has a stacked team.  But even mighty Spain only beat Iran by 1 goal.  And Mexico beat Germany by 1 goal.  Egypt has Mo Salah -  who is right up there this year with CR7 and Messi -  Egypt got blown out by Russia.  Messi and Argentina got waxed by Croatia and Modric/Rakitic. 

I guess my point is -  We don't need to find/create/develop the next "Messi"  - but we do need to find a dozen or so guys that have "it" -  That "it" is soccer talent, athleticism and desire to play until their face melts off.
Talent and athleticism can come out of our youth system. But that crazy desire to make it, doesn't seem to come from our "Country Club League" system-  Including the college game and Semi-Pro Ranks.  Heck, a guy in his 20's trying to make it as a 2nd tier pro player in the US will make more money coaching 12 year olds.  

The crop of players that we had trying to qualify this last round -  Only one of them has "IT" - - Pulisic.
The rest have 2 or 3 of these qualities -
Bradley and Jozy - decent talent but no desire to play like their life depends on it.
Dempsey -  Had "it". But too old to give "it" for a full 90 minutes
Yedlin -  Almost but he's probably a 7 of 10 across the 3 attributes mentioned above
Gonzalez, Besler, Nagbe, Wood, Villifana, Acosta - Good effort but just not talented to compete on a world stage.  So they either need to get grittier, get more fit or work on their skill.
Guzan and Howard -  Too bad there wasn't a reliable younger option coming up that could have learned from these 2.


----------



## Grace T. (Jun 22, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> 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.


Let's take your assumption.  Let's assume the goal is to sell the kid who might be MJ (or the soccer equivalent) and bring him into soccer on the assumption the cream rises to the top largely on it's own and it's a question of casting the wide enough net and marketing enough interest.  What are we doing right and what are we doing wrong with that assumption (because it's fun...yeah I'm weird....)?

Some thoughts.  Right:

-AYSO.  Cheap affordable way to give kids their first bite at the apple.  Sure the coaching is not great, but it will get better as more kids get into soccer and have kids on their own (think this is already happening slowly).  It's not great for an average player that we might want to raise to the college level and give them a scholarship edge, but the .001% cream will rise to the top anyways and doesn't need the extras (pun intended), as also highlighted by the OP's article.
-Competition.  Under this thinking America's winner-take-all, darn the possession game attitude may not do too much harm, at least in the early ages.  The things the MJ's/Lebrons/Beckhams thrive on is winning and reaching the extra level of competition.  And as teams like Iran and Costa Rica have shown, good solid keepers and defensive lines might be enough to get to the world cup.  At the later ages, Europe (see below).
-the MLS.  Disagree with you here then.  Inexpensive games are a great way to market to a large fan base that might otherwise not get to Europe to see a live game.  They also bring in European teams for exhibition matches.  Eventually, though, the salary caps would need to go to produce a Real Madrid, Juventus, MC, or Bayern here that dominates the rest of the league.  A team has to be able to afford MJ.
-Soccer camps.  Great way to get kids interested in the game, though we'd probably have to try to tweak to get more broad based rec involvement by making them more broad based (more Two Rivers than Soccer Plus).
-Immigration: However else you feel about the issue, the influx of Latinos has done a lot to create a base of fans here in the US.  In addition to upper middle class awareness, we have a large soccer awareness in this community ready built.

Wrong:
-Club soccer: to the extent pay to play is a barrier for kids to play (particularly in the early years) and/or guts the competition in the AYSO system, it's a hindrance to finding MJ.
-Europe: Even if the cream rises to the top, in the intermediate term finding an American Messi would do more to sell the sport broadly and produce another American Messi.  Pele brought Brazil out of the wilderness (yes it had an established soccer culture before but Pele exploded it).  To get there, MJ would need the training he simply can't get at American colleges or the MLS (we simply don't have the equivalent of the ginga here).  That means making it easier for players to play in Europe and removing the disincentives (tax/immigration) to going overseas.  Because that's also what turns MJ away from the NFL and NBA and to the big soccer payout.
-College: For players that might be risk adverse and that occupy the .1% of players with the capacity to turn pro but not be MJ (and go direct to the NFL and NBA) college offers too much of a temptation.  Given one of the goals also seems to be to make college affordable, maybe time to lose college sport (what effect on the NFL and NBA too).  There would be consequences for the girl's of course, but the rest of the world doesn't seem to care about them either.
-Investment: As you point out, like Iceland we probably want to do more to build fields in the inner cities and rural areas, and futsal arenas in our more cold areas.  The soccer orgs should focus on that instead of fees for training and ID.
-Marketing: Similarly, the money is probably also better spent on marketing.  Contrary to Hope Solo's claims, having the world cup here again is a great step forward.  
-The perception of soccer.  One thing AYSO does badly (and club soccer does better) is to call tight games.  Maybe the "play on" school of referees have a point.  One of the knocks against soccer in areas like the south is that it is a game for lightweights, who are afraid of the physical contact.  A more physical game, coupled with various bad headlines against the NFL, recently, might help.


----------



## timbuck (Jun 22, 2018)

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.


----------



## Grace T. (Jun 22, 2018)

timbuck said:


> 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.


Under the current arrangement though, they'd never want to do that.  If they are skilled, going to college provides a bigger safety net than an MLS salary, pulling down the European salary is hard given that there are a lot of barriers to playing in Europe for Americans, and unless they are in one of the communities that soccer is heavily penetrated (upper middle class burbs and Latinos) they might not even know to look at soccer (or be discouraged from even trying it because real men don't play soccer).


----------

