A good article about Coaches and Parents here in America

Jason DiDomenico said:
You can't "teach" speed, size and athleticism. You CAN "teach" the technical skills. If two players are equal in ability, I think most would take the bigger/stronger player over the smaller/less physical player.
Click to expand...

and that's why our men have never been a major player in the world. Do you know the dutch have two national teams as do many European countries? One is for kids who are have matured early and are super athletic and the second is for kids who haven't matured fully but exhibit great soccer IQ, technical and understand the game. The senior team is sprinkled with kids growing up in both systems.

How many times you see a guy who is as fast as Bolt yet has the touch of a rhinoceros? It's more common than you think, especially at the college level. I'll semi agree and say you can sometimes "teach" speed, size and athletic. As for the technical skills, once you hit a certain age, it's MUCH harder to learn. If a guy is superior in athleticism and equal in ability, then of course he/she will always win. Im specifically talking about the stud at 10-12 years old that scored 10 goals and is a goliath but fizzles out because he/she wasn't taught "properly" at the younger age...do you disagree that a lot of clubs value wins vs. development?
 
I first received my rude awakening in how perennially lame soccer development is in the US when my gifted U12 was benched for most of an important tournament match, telling me after the game that the coach said to him "you're too technical and this was a very physical match."
 
Jason DiDomenico said:
You can't "teach" speed, size and athleticism. You CAN "teach" the technical skills. If two players are equal in ability, I think most would take the bigger/stronger player over the smaller/less physical player.
Click to expand...
You CAN "teach" the technical skills but you CAN'T teach a player to have great technical skills. You can only enhance what a player already naturally has. If a player is gifted with speed, size and athleticism its not a given that you can teach them the technical skills. Any coach or parent can spot a player with speed, size and athleticism its not difficult. Give me the the player with great touch along with a high IQ and fluidity. If this player is also fast and athletic.. great! If not they can still be an amazing player. Pirlo was never fast , but playing without hesitation effectively makes him so. Pirlo would have never made it if he was a kid living in the United States. I'll leave a quote from an amazing youth coach on why the US struggles to find these creative players.
"There are cultural reasons why this does not happen as much in the US. Clubs sell themselves to these 8 year old kids based on they just won the state cup or something like that, so there is SO much importance placed on results in these young formative years, this leads to conservative tactics and coaches joystick coaching every single detail, the kids room for creative expression is eliminated, pressure is only heightened from the parents, coupled with the "safer" tactics of the coach who does long ball to avoid mistakes and it's a culmination of all this that is not conducive to developing exciting, creative players who are free to express themselves."
 
Most Americans I know want to win and so does this guy. 1st place or nothing where I come from. He freaking tossed his 2nd place metal. That is a GOAT. Big, Strong, Fast, Mentally Tough as nails, skilled and technical and has one of the strongest kicks in the world. Messi is faster with the ball and it sticks to his cleat like no one I know so he gets a pass on the physical size challenge with the best.
1577206605948.png
If you want to be the best of da best then you better have it all and 99.5% of our kids DON'T have it all. I know a guy who goes on tour doing amazing things with a soccer ball. Kind of the like the Harlem Globetrotters. This soccer dude is a stud. I asked him why no pro and he said he wasn't quick enough or fast enough to play with da best. If you watched Stanford play, I saw girls who had it ALL just like Mike Trout. Just win baby!!!!
 
Last edited:
Soccerhelper said:
Most Americans I know want to win and so does this guy. 1st place or nothing where I come from. He freaking tossed his 2nd place metal. That is a GOAT. Big, Strong, Fast, Mentally Tough as nails, skilled and technical and has one of the strongest kicks in the world. Messi is faster with the ball and it sticks to his cleat like no one I know so he gets a pass on the physical size challenge with the best.
View attachment 6059
If you want to be the best of da best then you better have it all and 99.5% of our kids DON'T have it all. I know a guy who goes on tour doing amazing things with a soccer ball. Kind of the like the Harlem Globetrotters. This soccer dude is a stud. I asked him why no pro and he said he wasn't quick enough or fast enough to play with da best. If you watched Stanford play, I saw girls who had it ALL just like Mike Trout. Just win baby!!!!
Click to expand...

Stanford women are a good example of where the USNT needs to move towards...I was at the game and Stanford dominated the game from start to finish (maybe about the last 15 minutes of the first half UNC was on fire). Posessed, diagonal runs, play out the back...UNC showed little signs of possession, but is more traditional kick and play.

If Messi would have grown up in the USA, he would have easily been passed up for bigger, faster, and stronger players. Winning NOW doesn't always equate to winning later..kinda willing the battle but not the war.
 
SoccerJones said:
Stanford women are a good example of where the USNT needs to move towards...I was at the game and Stanford dominated the game from start to finish (maybe about the last 15 minutes of the first half UNC was on fire). Posessed, diagonal runs, play out the back...UNC showed little signs of possession, but is more traditional kick and play.

If Messi would have grown up in the USA, he would have easily been passed up for bigger, faster, and stronger players. Winning NOW doesn't always equate to winning later..kinda willing the battle but not the war.
Click to expand...
If Messi, Ronaldo or Pele or any of the GOATs lived here none of them would be a GOAT at soccer. This place sucks to learn the game the right way. I've shared enough why that is true. Firstly, to be a GOAT in soccer you probably need to be poor. Not too many poor folks playing soccer at the "Elite" level here in DA States. The poor can't afford to play club soccer. Hell, I can't afford club soccer to be honest. The parents want to win here and winning trumps development. Winning to most is getting kid in great school. For a few others, it's winning the actual game and beating out others for a starting spot while others get cut. Find the winners and then develop them to be the best of the best. Not all are winners. BTW, I watched my first college cup on tv and I saw things differently but no need to argue about NCs play. I say US Soccer hire the coach at Stanford and put him in charge of WNT and YNT. He seems like a good guy. Let him pick his players and the rest of the kids can focus on getting into college. We also need someone on the Men's side to have 100% autonomy to hit the reset button and blow up the DA and try something else. Men suck at soccer and this development stuff is not working were surely not getting better. DA has everything to do with it too 100%. The girls are next i'm afraid.
 
$15,000 a year for high level Elite club soccer that goes on tour across the USA showing all to see the new girls in the developmental league. Fact didn't believe me that DA is that expensive. Unlimited resources (that means lots of cash in DA bank) is hard to compete with if you're check to check or poor in the USA. Listen to reason and then let's have some Hope for everyone to have equal access to the highest level of soccer and the YNT and WNT.
 
A couple things I consider in all this. First of all, The USWNT is pretty dominant. America is pretty top notch for women's global soccer, no?

Secondly, our best male athletes go towards higher paying, more popular American sports like football, basketball, baseball, and even hockey, no?

Thirdly, don't other countries play soccer, futsal, street soccer, etc. without coaches and such. Basically, they have a love of the game and play it on their own with or without organization. Soccer is not popular in America. This can change of course, but I don't fall for this aim for winning is killing the game here. We keep score for a reason and it's natural to want to win. Nothing wrong with that at all. Now, development and training are the time to experiment and make mistakes.

Everyone talking about making youth soccer more affordable reminds me of those who want to make health care more affordable. Someone has to pay for it, so what becomes more affordable for some, makes it more costly for others. The more we try to fix things, the more we make things worse imo. I mean our whole economic growth with debt and monetary policy in The U.S. basically makes all of our mandatory, domestic costs of living even more expensive due to the growth of liquidity and inflation. It does not show up on the cpi index, because we get cheap products made globally now, but if its made here, it's damn expensive. Any attempt to make it cheaper through govt. funding makes it more funded and thus more expensive.

I would love to see a club like soccer organization with decent coaching that focuses on basic fundamentals for the youth, but where the kids can play and learn to love the game without tryouts, traveling all over, and lots of expense. AYSO is not an option imo. It has to have some focus on keeping it competitive and trying to win is important not everything, but a goal. Good development and fundamentals lead to winning. Just some of my thoughts.
 
way up said:
A couple things I consider in all this. First of all, The USWNT is pretty dominant. America is pretty top notch for women's global soccer, no?

Secondly, our best male athletes go towards higher paying, more popular American sports like football, basketball, baseball, and even hockey, no?

Thirdly, don't other countries play soccer, futsal, street soccer, etc. without coaches and such. Basically, they have a love of the game and play it on their own with or without organization. Soccer is not popular in America. This can change of course, but I don't fall for this aim for winning is killing the game here. We keep score for a reason and it's natural to want to win. Nothing wrong with that at all. Now, development and training are the time to experiment and make mistakes.

Everyone talking about making youth soccer more affordable reminds me of those who want to make health care more affordable. Someone has to pay for it, so what becomes more affordable for some, makes it more costly for others. The more we try to fix things, the more we make things worse imo. I mean our whole economic growth with debt and monetary policy in The U.S. basically makes all of our mandatory, domestic costs of living even more expensive due to the growth of liquidity and inflation. It does not show up on the cpi index, because we get cheap products made globally now, but if its made here, it's damn expensive. Any attempt to make it cheaper through govt. funding makes it more funded and thus more expensive.

I would love to see a club like soccer organization with decent coaching that focuses on basic fundamentals for the youth, but where the kids can play and learn to love the game without tryouts, traveling all over, and lots of expense. AYSO is not an option imo. It has to have some focus on keeping it competitive and trying to win is important not everything, but a goal. Good development and fundamentals lead to winning. Just some of my thoughts.
Click to expand...

First of all....:rolleyes:

you make some good points. There are only a hand few of clubs in CA (don't know much about other states) that take a true interest in developing the whole play and will take them where they're at (good or poor) and do the best to make them better. of course everyone wants to win but at the youth level (U12-maybe younger-and under) it should be about, like you said, making it fun, falling in love with the game, and learning to be creative. The reason why other countries are more successful isn't because their number 1 sport, but there are less adults "training" them at younger ages when it's just picking up a ball and going to the par or playing on the street avoiding cars. Americans have this idea that training more is better instead of just training better. USA kids don't go out and play anymore and it's even more evident in affluent areas.

AS for your making it affordable comment...paying for one year of soccer at some clubs is more than a ENTIRE year of having affordable healthcare. What clubs are doing in club soccer (other sports too) is damn near highway robbery. 7-14k a year for soccer without guarantee that you'll get a scholarship or NT invite in the end? U12-U18 that's 42-84k for all those years. It's easy for some parents to write a check and those are the kids you see on the WNT, YNT's. Very rarely do you see kids from a low socio-economic place playing at that level due to not having access. Yes out teams are dominant (women's) but that's because they have had a 30-40 year advantage of having title IX on their side and people invested in their future. Many countries just started programs in the last 2 WC cycles. We will not continue to be as dominant as we are unless things change.
 
SoccerJones said:
First of all....:rolleyes:

you make some good points. There are only a hand few of clubs in CA (don't know much about other states) that take a true interest in developing the whole play and will take them where they're at (good or poor) and do the best to make them better. of course everyone wants to win but at the youth level (U12-maybe younger-and under) it should be about, like you said, making it fun, falling in love with the game, and learning to be creative. The reason why other countries are more successful isn't because their number 1 sport, but there are less adults "training" them at younger ages when it's just picking up a ball and going to the par or playing on the street avoiding cars. Americans have this idea that training more is better instead of just training better. USA kids don't go out and play anymore and it's even more evident in affluent areas.

AS for your making it affordable comment...paying for one year of soccer at some clubs is more than a ENTIRE year of having affordable healthcare. What clubs are doing in club soccer (other sports too) is damn near highway robbery. 7-14k a year for soccer without guarantee that you'll get a scholarship or NT invite in the end? U12-U18 that's 42-84k for all those years. It's easy for some parents to write a check and those are the kids you see on the WNT, YNT's. Very rarely do you see kids from a low socio-economic place playing at that level due to not having access. Yes out teams are dominant (women's) but that's because they have had a 30-40 year advantage of having title IX on their side and people invested in their future. Many countries just started programs in the last 2 WC cycles. We will not continue to be as dominant as we are unless things change.
Click to expand...

I'll start with what I agree with. Soccer is expensive in America like everything else. We only spend about $2,400 a year or so for U-9 for our club, but this involves a lot of time and driving. You're referring to DA and ECNL club teams probably with your 7k or more. To be perfectly honest, I think the parent has to love watching them play as much as the kid wants to play for club to be desirable. It's a big commitment for a parent in time and money.

Now, it gets more expensive and this is the trap I worry about. People are so concerned about their kids burning out, but if they are not top of class, what are their odds of college soccer? My kid needs to show me she has something to worry about getting burned out from before I worry about this burn out. Also, I'm willing to bte that the goal of most parents is college scholarship not pros. Other countries have pro programs where the kids devote their what would be education time into pro academy time. Math is important here. How much do pro-women make in soccer? Probably less than doctors, lawyers, and/or engineers? That's the goal in America. The good paying job, so most of us parents push academics and college education more than soccer. Soccer plus good academics is what leads to success imo.

I think I'm trying to say that statistics show how good youth sports like soccer are for career success later and that is my #1 goal for my daughter. If my daughter happens to be blessed enough to be some future star (which I totally doubt!), I would wish she would use it to gain the high paying, secure job not so much pro soccer. Other countries do not have the prosperity that America has. The best option for success might very well be the pro soccer or something within soccer rather than the professional career that college soccer leads to??

Still, soccer is not a popular sport in America. You have to face that. Maybe it's gaining in popularity?? I don't know. Out of curiosity though, how would you lower the cost for teenage club soccer? Someone has to get paid to organize and build training programs. Noone is going to work for free. Club coaches usually have other jobs too. I mean I don't think anyone is cleaning up exactly. You're talking weekends, nights, and quite a bit of stress to boot for these clubs.

Throw in computers and electronic gadgets and kids are spending even less time playing sports, so it may take parental influence to keep them in soccer. America has challenges ahead, but like everything, it's up to the parent to motivate and encourage imo. The kids play soccer and the parents play the game. LOL! We shall see what happens, but I do agree that cheaper alternatives besides AYSO would be nice. Probably not going to happen due to liability, fields, and the usual red tape when money is involved.
 
In Germany, kids are not just running around playing pick up jungle ball soccer. They are getting top notch, pro training from 5 years old on.

Iceland, and all of Europe, same approach. Only credentialed coaches work with 5 year olds.

Here in the US, it’s volunteer moms and dads that have never played soccer themselves who are teaching the 5 year olds. For baseball, football and basketball, it’s always someone who has actually played the game, so they get good fundamental early instruction.

Over generations, we’ll get there but it’s gonna be a long road to catch up, even with growing numbers playing.

Disclaimer: I never played the game; just learning vicariously through my kid playing!
 
Giesbock said:
In Germany, kids are not just running around playing pick up jungle ball soccer. They are getting top notch, pro training from 5 years old on.

Iceland, and all of Europe, same approach. Only credentialed coaches work with 5 year olds.

Here in the US, it’s volunteer moms and dads that have never played soccer themselves who are teaching the 5 year olds. For baseball, football and basketball, it’s always someone who has actually played the game, so they get good fundamental early instruction.

Over generations, we’ll get there but it’s gonna be a long road to catch up, even with growing numbers playing.

Disclaimer: I never played the game; just learning vicariously through my kid playing!
Click to expand...

Interesting! But is that pro-training donated or who pays the trainers? Don't they also have academies in Europe and elsewhere where teenagers focus 100% on soccer. In America, our teenagers still focus a lot on academics as well and, again, college is academic plus soccer. Isn't it possible that American young adults and upper teenagers are mixing their soccer training with academics more so than the rest of the world? I'm asking, because I don't know. I think it's possible Americans are more focused on using soccer and other sports for that matter for gaining college education rather than going pro especially considering the odds of going pro in most sports.
 
Yeah fair points about who pays the trainers...probably subsidized vis a vis higher taxes / better social safety net than we have here. But I don’t know that for sure!

Also correct and fair point about academies. They’re molding future pros. German universities have NO athletic programs, so once a young player embarks on the athletic pathway, academics go by the wayside. If someone doesn’t reach the Bundesliga pinnacle, they don’t have an education to fall back on...So that may be another significant difference between US and German soccer landscape.
 
Giesbock said:
Yeah fair points about who pays the trainers...probably subsidized vis a vis higher taxes / better social safety net than we have here. But I don’t know that for sure!

Also correct and fair point about academies. They’re molding future pros. German universities have NO athletic programs, so once a young player embarks on the athletic pathway, academics go by the wayside. If someone doesn’t reach the Bundesliga pinnacle, they don’t have an education to fall back on...So that may be another significant difference between US and German soccer landscape.
Click to expand...
Can not speak for Germany, but in France all players no matter what age are put into a data base and tracked. Their Federation keeps a tab on the youth development, movement, affiliation, etc.
 
Imagine this...a club coach (you pick your sport) comes to a low income city (by accident-play with me here) to try to start a program. he/she/they has great credential as do most of the coaches on his staff. Then, after running a few sessions he tells kids/families that it's gonna cost anywhere from 7k-10k depending on what program they decide to attend. By this time, word has spread of this new coach that's running these amazing technical/tactical sessions and is going to be the next great big thing...

Who's gonna pay that kind of money? it'll be the affluential people from the burbs. meanwhile there's a segment that's left out because they can't play the game INSIDE the game. In all seriousness...whats even more sad and this is coming top down is our national team. Out of the 12 spots for YNT's (boy and girls) there are 2 of 12 spots that are currently filled and it's been a while since any of them have been filled. The people making the decisions for soccer here in the USA have no idea what they're doing...blind leading deaf
 
Found this article...I wonder if USSF spends $68mm per year on our youth development...

Between 2001 and 2011 professional teams in Germany spent ~$681 million on the development of youth soccer, according to the Bundesliga report. At the same time, the German Football Association - the body that controls the national team itself - started its own $13-million per year youth initiative. According to the New York Times, there are now 366 German FA-operated youth centers in the country, which serve 25,000 kids.
 
The big difference there is that the German pro clubs are the ones spending the majority of that money. Not the German federation.
Why would Bayern, Schalke, etc invest that kind of money in youth soccer?
Because they make that money back in solidarity payments and training compensation.
 
It is what it is pretty much. I will say that The USWNT could not fill up a college football stadium (in a friendly) and they are basically the most dominant, female international team with back to back WC wins. College football not only fills the stadium up, but could probably keep filling if there were more seats. American Football programs in high school and above help fund and pay for other school extra curriculars from what I hear. American Football is popular and people pay to see it. Have you seen the stands in college soccer for the men and the women? Very light! Money talks and someone has to come up with it. Not it! I have my own daughter's training to pay for. Again, it comes down to math and economics.
 
way up said:
It is what it is pretty much. I will say that The USWNT could not fill up a college football stadium (in a friendly) and they are basically the most dominant, female international team with back to back WC wins. College football not only fills the stadium up, but could probably keep filling if there were more seats. American Football programs in high school and above help fund and pay for other school extra curriculars from what I hear. American Football is popular and people pay to see it. Have you seen the stands in college soccer for the men and the women? Very light! Money talks and someone has to come up with it. Not it! I have my own daughter's training to pay for. Again, it comes down to math and economics.
Click to expand...

It really depends on the football program. There's only a handful of college program (top to bottom) that come out in the black at the end of the season. Schools with dominant football programs do get a ton of money but so do the ones with good hoop programs. There's a reason why there are headcount teams and # of scholarship teams. For the most part, the head count teams generate the most money in college sports. I mean think about it...

Basketball: 5 plays at a time-15 head count scholarships
Football: 11 play at a time- 54 head count scholarships
Volleyball: 6 play-12 scholarships
Baseball: 9 play 11.7 scholarships
Soccer: 11 play, 14 scholarships

It's pretty simple..basketball and football are king of college sports and volleyball, gymnastics, and tennis round out the bunch so that title IX is compliant. There are some schools that pack the soccer stands for both women and mens teams. Stanford, Santa Clara, UNC, Virginia are some of the schools that I've seen where they have a great college environment. But not all programs are equal lol
 
SoccerJones said:
It really depends on the football program. There's only a handful of college program (top to bottom) that come out in the black at the end of the season. Schools with dominant football programs do get a ton of money but so do the ones with good hoop programs. There's a reason why there are headcount teams and # of scholarship teams. For the most part, the head count teams generate the most money in college sports. I mean think about it...

Basketball: 5 plays at a time-15 head count scholarships
Football: 11 play at a time- 54 head count scholarships
Volleyball: 6 play-12 scholarships
Baseball: 9 play 11.7 scholarships
Soccer: 11 play, 14 scholarships

It's pretty simple..basketball and football are king of college sports and volleyball, gymnastics, and tennis round out the bunch so that title IX is compliant. There are some schools that pack the soccer stands for both women and mens teams. Stanford, Santa Clara, UNC, Virginia are some of the schools that I've seen where they have a great college environment. But not all programs are equal lol
Click to expand...
Where did you get these numbers? Top football programs, of which there are 120, have 85 full scholarships. The next 125 schools have 63. Division II has 36.

Men's DI soccer has only 9.9 total scholarships (that are usually spread out). Even Lacrosse has more. The 14 are only for women.

See: http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html
 
focomoso said:
Where did you get these numbers? Top football programs, of which there are 120, have 85 full scholarships. The next 125 schools have 63. Division II has 36.

Men's DI soccer has only 9.9 total scholarships (that are usually spread out). Even Lacrosse has more. The 14 are only for women.

See: http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html
Click to expand...

The numbers are off but that's not the point...the point was the economics and the state of college soccer with regards to scholarship and numbers. A lot of D1 schools don't carry 15 basketball players on a roster and don't use the full 15 where as with women's soccer, the 14 (in my opinion) is way too low with how many are actually on a roster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top