U17 Women's World Cup

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!
 
eastbaysoccer said:
http://breakingthelines.com/opinion-pieces/why-usas-youth-development-continues-to-stagnate/
Click to expand...
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.
 
dyzio03 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
oh canada said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
oh canada said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
El Clasico said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
El Clasico said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
El Clasico said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
End of the Line said:
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.
Click to expand...

USSF definitely tries to pick athletes who can beat other players. Many have called these the “wrong” players but I agree with EOTL’s argument that these players are the best candidates to be taught to play in a possession system. Plus I just don’t see kids that lack the skills to dribble or beat players 1v1 but are actually “better” players. What the US lacks in playing style is a symptom of our soccer culture and EOTL is right - YNT camp is not much time for a team and a style to gel. I also agree that USSF is not concerned with whether we win at U17, although I don’t agree they are only concerned about 2-3 players. The higher quality the overall evironment, the better the best will be.

I agree with Sheriff too except I would go further and say first touch predicts almost everything else.

US Soccer’s whole intent is to improve the overall soccer culture by requiring training, providing support and holding clubs accountable for playing soccer instead of kickball. DA was one first step in that direction.
 
Here I was worried about the lack of success of our various youth national teams, but apparently that is just part of the larger strategy for building the WNT. Only success at that level matters. Good thing we do not hold US Soccer to that standard for our MNT.

Our WNT is successful because the development and competition the players get in college more than offsets the damage US Soccer can do at the youth level. The same cannot be said for the boys/men’s side. But I appreciate there are still believers — just one more alteration to standards of play, or a few more league rules and mandates, and the promised land awaits.

Of course, they have now defined success as qualification for the World Cup. Given that is automatic for a host, I look forward to our future success in 2026.
 
Soccerfan2 said:
USSF definitely tries to pick athletes who can beat other players. Many have called these the “wrong” players but I agree with EOTL’s argument that these players are the best candidates to be taught to play in a possession system. Plus I just don’t see kids that lack the skills to dribble or beat players 1v1 but are actually “better” players. What the US lacks in playing style is a symptom of our soccer culture and EOTL is right - YNT camp is not much time for a team and a style to gel. I also agree that USSF is not concerned with whether we win at U17, although I don’t agree they are only concerned about 2-3 players. The higher quality the overall evironment, the better the best will be.

I agree with Sheriff too except I would go further and say first touch predicts almost everything else.

US Soccer’s whole intent is to improve the overall soccer culture by requiring training, providing support and holding clubs accountable for playing soccer instead of kickball. DA was one first step in that direction.
Click to expand...

IMHO the problem with a lot of 1v1 dribblers is that they think they're 1v3 dribblers. I only saw the 2nd half of the Germany game but I saw a fair amount of dribbling into heavy pressure where the ball was lost. If your trying to beat 3 players, 2 of your teammates are wide open, likely in close proximity...get rid of the freaking ball. That's soccer IQ.

From my armchair, I think speed-of-play and gaining a numerical advantage are two of the most important elements in successful soccer. Dribbling can slow down the play and when you dribble into pressure your at a numerical disadvantage. Dribbling has to be used judiciously as a tool and not as an overall tactic. If you look at the most effective dribblers they dribble at the defender at speed with rarely any fancy moves, they beat you by getting you off balance and blowing by you (see Messi). Once a dribbler slows, stops, or pulls the ball back, they've lost most of their advantage and the defender recovers and simply "stands them up". At that point they have to rely on some fancy move with a low percentage success rate. The greatest advantage of a 1v1 dribbler is the threat that they will beat someone. For whatever reason, coaches and players fear getting beat 1v1 much more so than getting beat by a pass, so they mark up that player with multiple defenders which then gives you a numerical advantage which can be exploited by a smart player.

In the context of this thread and the article, 1v1 has been defined as someone who can beat a defender on the dribble. To me a true 1v1 player is much more than that. They win 50-50 balls, they can maintain possession long enough to create space and make a great pass, they create space so they can receive a pass, they can pressure an attacker into making a bad pass, etc... It's someone who can be successful offensively and defensively while under pressure from a single opponent regardless of what the battle may be.

I'm all for possession, because possession is proactive. If you have the ball you get to make the decisions. Given the option of having the ball and making a good decision vs. not having the ball and trying to make your opponent make a bad decision, I'd choose the former. However, possession without a purpose and/or pressure, is just possession for the sake of possession and probably isn't any more effective than "parking the bus".
 
watfly said:
IMHO the problem with a lot of 1v1 dribblers is that they think they're 1v3 dribblers. I only saw the 2nd half of the Germany game but I saw a fair amount of dribbling into heavy pressure where the ball was lost. If your trying to beat 3 players, 2 of your teammates are wide open, likely in close proximity...get rid of the freaking ball. That's soccer IQ.

From my armchair, I think speed-of-play and gaining a numerical advantage are two of the most important elements in successful soccer. Dribbling can slow down the play and when you dribble into pressure your at a numerical disadvantage. Dribbling has to be used judiciously as a tool and not as an overall tactic. If you look at the most effective dribblers they dribble at the defender at speed with rarely any fancy moves, they beat you by getting you off balance and blowing by you (see Messi). Once a dribbler slows, stops, or pulls the ball back, they've lost most of their advantage and the defender recovers and simply "stands them up". At that point they have to rely on some fancy move with a low percentage success rate. The greatest advantage of a 1v1 dribbler is the threat that they will beat someone. For whatever reason, coaches and players fear getting beat 1v1 much more so than getting beat by a pass, so they mark up that player with multiple defenders which then gives you a numerical advantage which can be exploited by a smart player.

In the context of this thread and the article, 1v1 has been defined as someone who can beat a defender on the dribble. To me a true 1v1 player is much more than that. They win 50-50 balls, they can maintain possession long enough to create space and make a great pass, they create space so they can receive a pass, they can pressure an attacker into making a bad pass, etc... It's someone who can be successful offensively and defensively while under pressure from a single opponent regardless of what the battle may be.

I'm all for possession, because possession is proactive. If you have the ball you get to make the decisions. Given the option of having the ball and making a good decision vs. not having the ball and trying to make your opponent make a bad decision, I'd choose the former. However, possession without a purpose and/or pressure, is just possession for the sake of possession and probably isn't any more effective than "parking the bus".
Click to expand...

Agree with much of what you have to say here. Let me try to unite a few concepts (and make a suggestion).

A player is best able to beat their defenders not by taking them on 1v1, but with anticipation and their first touch. I do not mean standing around and being able to trap whatever ball comes your way, I mean taking a touch that is controlled, positive and creates space and options (and being an option yourself). That requires players with not only great foot skills, but who can anticipate where they can receive the ball with the best opportunity to either posses or attack (and preferably both), who can receive the ball at speed and make a controlled touch into a space they will be first to, who play with their head up so they see what is developing and adjust their decisions accordingly and, most importanly, it requires teammates who understand where they are likely to be, and how to pass it to that space (and not to where they were). Now perhaps some will argue that the best pure athletes can be taught all this. I respectfully disagree -- soccer IQ is both learned and innate, and you cannot relay on only one method to obtain it.

Regardless, team play requires more time together. The USYNT camp should run from June-August, 60-70 days every summer (starting at age 14), then additional 2-3 week sessions fall/winter and spring, and perhaps one weekend per month games (in addition to their club). Player pools should be 60 per combined age group, able to create A/B/C teams. Encourage clubs to pay for their invited players' travel, have US Soccer cover all camp costs and have some travel scholarships. Stop funding club leagues, spend that money on the youth national teams and on coach education at the youngest levels.

Oh -- and let the kids play high school soccer, because not only is it good marketing for US Soccer and what is possible, but it allows the kids, who will have a lot demanded of them, to still have a childhood. Even CIF makes exemptions for National Team duties. And playing HS will not lobotomize our best players, provided they have a soccer brain to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top