LA TIMES: Is youth soccer training to blame for American team failure to make WC?

I’m pretty sure C. Ronaldo makes more money off the field in terms of endorsements than any other athlete.

.
I agree with everything you say about NBA/NFL athletes and how they'd perform in soccer. But it is also about the money. The Ronaldos in the world are very few and far between. And they play for only a handful of mega clubs that dominate their local leagues (2 in Spain, 3 or 4 in England, 2-3 in Germany, 1 in Russia). A goalkeeper for a 2nd tier club like Sevilla FC in Spain makes about $1M a year. La Coruna in contrast spends $17M for its entire squad. If you get down to the division 2s and 3s you are getting below MLS wages. (You can argue US baseball salaries work similarly if you consider Europe one superstate...but the U.S. dominance in baseball has already slipped so it sort of also proves the point).

So basically, to pull down that salary, a US player would have to forgo college and go directly to Europe. Pulisic, arguably our best USMNT player, is pulling down a little north of $1M. He has upside potential...but for an American player starting out, that seems to be the high mark one can aim for. Add to that a bunch of disincentives the American player has to face to play in Europe: it's a long way from friends and family; they might not speak the local lingo; they have to break through the European academy system which already produces great players and to do that they may need to make the transition as early as high school; the US government double taxes them on their foreign earnings; their soccer education may not be up to an equivalent athlete raised in Europe due to our soccer culture and/or the level of training available; there are immigration issues with Americans resident in Europe; the list goes on. You'd need a player good enough to compete with the Europeans for the highest level clubs and who's willing to forego the safe option of college and take a risk in Europe for the few potential very high pay days (given the odds for a person getting into Harvard or becoming a Hollywood movie star are better for an American than breaking into a tier 1 European club, let alone becoming it's Ronaldo).
 
The women have generated more revenue than men's soccer in 2015, 2016 and appears 2017 as well but alas are way below the men in compensation!
I find this hard to believe. And if it’s true, it can only be true because numbers were parsed in a way to exclude a huge revenue year for the men. I’m sure the men’s soccer team earns the greater percentage of revenue by far.

I’m not putting down women’s soccer. I don’t have a daughter, but if I did I would have her playing something because I wouldn’t want her sitting around never getting in shape. I think it’s great that there are a lot of sports for girls to choose, have fun, and get in shape for. And I actually do watch women’s soccer during WC years, I try to catch every game I can.

But this idea that girls sports needs equal funding to men, IMO, is just wrong. Women’s sports has basically taken money from men’s sports for their funding. And honestly, I don’t see that situation changing any time in the foreseeable future. So IMO, the first priority always has to be to develop the revenue earning sport first, basically make the men’s game better and more competitive so that it can earn more money. After the men’s game has earned more money, then a chunk of that extra money, IMO should without question be put into the women’s game to develop it.

I just think it’s backasswards and terrible business sense to prioritize the non-revenue portion of the sport. Right now, since we have been bounced from the WC, we need to prioritize fixing men’s soccer in the US as our first priority.
 
The main problem is our country's greatest athletes are not playing soccer. Pick any running back in the NFL, or or just about any NBA player and teach them good fundamental soccer from the same age they learned their current sport, and we would be a force to be reckoned with, if not the absolute #1 team in the world.

Gawd! No wonder we as a country suck in soccer because we still have a lot of friggen idiots like these. I'm sorry to be so bluntly insulting but just have gotten so tired of this stupid, repeated argument which proves a poster's lack of soccer knowledge.

It's not that U.S. Soccer lacks great athletes. It LACKS sophisticated soccer trainers and parents!!! Most coaches at the top clubs just inherit and recruit the top athletes and don't develop their players' skills or tactical awareness measurably. And most parents just think their kids winning more this season than last is development. World-class soccer involves phenomenal speed of thought, awareness and creativity on top of physical movement, which we lack collectively in a group of 11. There are very, very few parents, youth coaches, high school coaches and college coaches who can develop that beyond the normal mediocre level found in the U.S. And we end up with a national team full of great athletes but little sophistication. Like taking a bunch of great checkers players to a global chess tournament. Yay!

The biggest hurdle putting us behind other countries is our child labor laws. While academies in other countries develop kids from a young age then profit modestly to enormously when they become full-fledged professionals, they don't have to concern themselves with wins and losses to stay solvent. They're vested in the long-term development of kids. Not so in this country. They just have you from year to year and are at the mercy of the whim of the unknowledgeable parents whose biggest hope is that their kid lands a college scholarship at best, not a professional contract in Europe.

There's even recent proof of what I'm talking about in this country. A former Barcelona transplant took a group of girls, none being exceptional athletes, and developed them from a young age into the top '98 team in the entire nation for several years. Yep! Look up De Anza Force 98 Girls and coach Andres Deza. A sophisticated soccer dad. He's an exception. So are Christian Pulisic's parents.

Until more exceptions appear and prosper so it becomes normal, or at least until there's at least 11 for each gender, we as a country will always be mired in mediocrity.

Forget about getting all the top atheletes. Enough play soccer in this *country. We need the best coaches and smarter parents.

Rant over. Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!!
 
Last edited:
That hardly seems true. Just look at the math. Parents are paying this guy $25 per hour to train with 7 other kids? That's $1300 per year. Say he has an amazing retention rate and 80% of his slots are filled by return customers. To fill the other 20% he would need 250 kids to pay for his services in addition to the 77 kids paying him every month. That's a lot of kids and money.
If Josep is referring to the trainer I think he is referencing then quite possibly his number is a bit high per evening, but very possible with this individual. Not sure throughout the year he is hitting the number suggested. We have been to his training's and he does get the numbers. He does multiple sessions per day.


Don’t forget the holiday week camps. Granted he’s paying for fields, but he’s got a strong system.
 
There's even recent proof of what I'm talking about in this country. A former Barcelona transplant took a group of girls, none being exceptional athletes, and developed them from a young age into the top '98 team in the entire nation for several years. Yep! Look up De Anza Force 98 Girls and coach Andres Deza. A sophisticated soccer dad. He's an exception. So are Christian Pulisic's parents.

Until more exceptions appear and prosper so it becomes normal, or at least until there's at least 11 for each gender, we as a country will always be mired in mediocrity.

Forget about getting all the top atheletes. Enough play soccer in this soccer. We need the best coaches and smarter parents.

Rant over. Have a Happy Thanksgiving!!!

Give Deza or Brian Kleiban our National Teams and we would see a DRAMATIC change in our team’s style of play and results.

Our problems as a country are we have too many coaches that don’t know how to coach and parents that think winning records at U8 is what development is all about.
 
Give Deza or Brian Kleiban our National Teams and we would see a DRAMATIC change in our team’s style of play and results.

Our problems as a country are we have too many coaches that don’t know how to coach and parents that think winning records at U8 is what development is all about.
I guess the Italians better improve their youth development program too since they didn't qualify for World Cup!
 
I find this hard to believe. And if it’s true, it can only be true because numbers were parsed in a way to exclude a huge revenue year for the men. I’m sure the men’s soccer team earns the greater percentage of revenue by far.

I’m not putting down women’s soccer. I don’t have a daughter, but if I did I would have her playing something because I wouldn’t want her sitting around never getting in shape. I think it’s great that there are a lot of sports for girls to choose, have fun, and get in shape for. And I actually do watch women’s soccer during WC years, I try to catch every game I can.

But this idea that girls sports needs equal funding to men, IMO, is just wrong. Women’s sports has basically taken money from men’s sports for their funding. And honestly, I don’t see that situation changing any time in the foreseeable future. So IMO, the first priority always has to be to develop the revenue earning sport first, basically make the men’s game better and more competitive so that it can earn more money. After the men’s game has earned more money, then a chunk of that extra money, IMO should without question be put into the women’s game to develop it.

I just think it’s backasswards and terrible business sense to prioritize the non-revenue portion of the sport. Right now, since we have been bounced from the WC, we need to prioritize fixing men’s soccer in the US as our first priority.

@JJP - While we may disagree regarding football athletes potential to make good soccer players, we do agree on this point (sort of).

@Lambchop - There is no disagreement (even by US Soccer) that the USWNT's revenue exceeded expectations and the winning women have/will make a profit v. the losing men when it comes to game revenues. A 2016 NY Times article recognized: "But in 2015, the women’s team won the World Cup and then embarked on a scheduled 10-city victory tour that yielded an eight-figure bump to U.S. Soccer’s bottom line. As a result, the women brought in more than $23 million in game revenue, about $16 million more than the federation had projected. An anomaly? Yes. And a welcome one if you are U.S. Soccer." (NY Times Article, 2016)

When it comes to Olympic and Wold Cup efforts participation by the US (men or women) is not just about money, but a point of national pride. The investment, even if break even, is worth it and we know that US Soccer through game revenues, FIFA bonuses and the sale of merchandise and rights has the war chest to adequately fund the efforts. The problem is the men's program is substantially more profitable than the woman's program from a FIFA perpective. For example, U.S. Soccer received from FIFA $9 million when the men’s team advanced to the second round of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, but only about $2 million when the women won the 2015 World Cup in Canada. Each of those bonuses were paid because of on-field performance and arguably earned by the respective teams, is it fair to deny the men their bonus and direct those funds to the woman? As long as the men's program remains what the world will tune too, the pay disparity will exist. If somebody can figure out how to get the world to watch the slower speed of the woman's game at the same rate as the much faster men's game, then the pay gap will equalize.

Notwithstanding the above, the fact remains that professional women's team sports in the U.S. are unprofitable ventures that lose millions. The WNBA, NWSL, NPF (National Pro Fastpitch) have yet to turn a single dollar of profit. You simply don't pay athletes millions of dollars when the leagues lose millions of dollars, to do so would bankrupt the league and drive these benevolent long-term investors away. Simple economics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JJP
@JJP - While we may disagree regarding football athletes potential to make good soccer players, we do agree on this point (sort of).

@Lambchop - There is no disagreement (even by US Soccer) that the USWNT's revenue exceeded expectations and the winning women have/will make a profit v. the losing men when it comes to game revenues. A 2016 NY Times article recognized: "But in , the women’s team won the World Cup and then embarked on a scheduled 10-city victory tour that yielded an eight-figure bump to U.S. Soccer’s bottom line. As a result, the women brought in more than $23 million in game revenue, about $16 million more than the federation had projected. An anomaly? Yes. And a welcome one if you are U.S. Soccer." (NY Times Article, 20


When it comes to Olympic and Wold Cup efforts participation by the US (men or women) is not just about money, but a point of national pride. The investment, even if break even, is worth it and we know that US Soccer through game revenues, FIFA bonuses and the sale of merchandise and rights has the war chest to adequately fund the efforts. The problem is the men's program is substantially more profitable than the woman's program from a FIFA perpective. For example, U.S. Soccer received from FIFA $9 million when the men’s team advanced to the second round of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, but only about $2 million when the women won the 2015 World Cup in Canada. Each of those bonuses were paid because of on-field performance and arguably earned by the respective teams, is it fair to deny the men their bonus and direct those funds to the woman? As long as the men's program remains what the world will tune too, the pay disparity will exist. If somebody can figure out how to get the world to watch the slower speed of the woman's game at the same rate as the much faster men's game, then the pay gap will equalize.

Notwithstanding the above, the fact remains that professional women's team sports in the U.S. are unprofitable ventures that lose millions. The WNBA, NWSL, NPF (National Pro Fastpitch) have yet to turn a single dollar of profit. You simply don't pay athletes millions of dollars when the leagues lose millions of dollars, to do so would bankrupt the league and drive these benevolent long-term investors away. Simple economics.
So you believe everything the Times writes about. :) Time will tell. Frankly, the men's game is faster but very boring when they constantly loose. My family and friends would rather watch a winning game than a boring one
 
@JJP - While we may disagree regarding football athletes potential to make good soccer players, we do agree on this point (sort of).

@Lambchop - There is no disagreement (even by US Soccer) that the USWNT's revenue exceeded expectations and the winning women have/will make a profit v. the losing men when it comes to game revenues. A 2016 NY Times article recognized: "But in 2015, the women’s team won the World Cup and then embarked on a scheduled 10-city victory tour that yielded an eight-figure bump to U.S. Soccer’s bottom line. As a result, the women brought in more than $23 million in game revenue, about $16 million more than the federation had projected. An anomaly? Yes. And a welcome one if you are U.S. Soccer." (NY Times Article, 2016)

When it comes to Olympic and Wold Cup efforts participation by the US (men or women) is not just about money, but a point of national pride. The investment, even if break even, is worth it and we know that US Soccer through game revenues, FIFA bonuses and the sale of merchandise and rights has the war chest to adequately fund the efforts. The problem is the men's program is substantially more profitable than the woman's program from a FIFA perpective. For example, U.S. Soccer received from FIFA $9 million when the men’s team advanced to the second round of the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, but only about $2 million when the women won the 2015 World Cup in Canada. Each of those bonuses were paid because of on-field performance and arguably earned by the respective teams, is it fair to deny the men their bonus and direct those funds to the woman? As long as the men's program remains what the world will tune too, the pay disparity will exist. If somebody can figure out how to get the world to watch the slower speed of the woman's game at the same rate as the much faster men's game, then the pay gap will equalize.

Notwithstanding the above, the fact remains that professional women's team sports in the U.S. are unprofitable ventures that lose millions. The WNBA, NWSL, NPF (National Pro Fastpitch) have yet to turn a single dollar of profit. You simply don't pay athletes millions of dollars when the leagues lose millions of dollars, to do so would bankrupt the league and drive these benevolent long-term investors away. Simple economics.
Ya simple economics, and you believe everything you read in the Times. :) Frankly, the men's game is faster but it is very boring to watch a losing game and we do not attend games for a losing team. I would much rather watch a winning game. Time will tell. As for FIFA, they are incredibly corrupt and there is so much that needs to change from within the organization. Hopefully the women will continue to qualify for future WC, so forward and onward. Interesting how men equate fast with good and better.
 
Ya simple economics, and you believe everything you read in the Times. :) Frankly, the men's game is faster but it is very boring to watch a losing game and we do not attend games for a losing team. I would much rather watch a winning game. Time will tell. As for FIFA, they are incredibly corrupt and there is so much that needs to change from within the organization. Hopefully the women will continue to qualify for future WC, so forward and onward. Interesting how men equate fast with good and better.

@Lambchop,
Please don't confuse pro-woman's team sports with the Olympic or National team. These are two separate issues. One is not profitable, but the later is profitable. The facts reported by the Times are the facts. Opinions of those facts may differ. What the Times reported is what other news outlets also report, so yes, I tend to believe these indisputable facts. Here is another article confirming the ultimate point of the Times article: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/...ion-world-cup-win-germany-got-35-million-2014.

The revenues generated by the men's game are not just a percentage increase, but multiples compared to the woman's game. Nobody is arguing we abandon support of the national teams, rather, the failure to recognize the economic realities of professional soccer in the US for both men and women is a major disconnect by those seeking to solve the ultimate question "How to improve US soccer."
 
Ya simple economics, and you believe everything you read in the Times. :) Frankly, the men's game is faster but it is very boring to watch a losing game and we do not attend games for a losing team. I would much rather watch a winning game. Time will tell. As for FIFA, they are incredibly corrupt and there is so much that needs to change from within the organization. Hopefully the women will continue to qualify for future WC, so forward and onward. Interesting how men equate fast with good and better.

Everybody, including women’s coaches is looking for speed. Speed of foot and speed of thought. The difference between academy and flight 1, at least among the boys, is the speed of play. Every level you move up the players in general get faster, both mentally and physically. So I would say yes, on an individual and team level, more speed is good and better.

Whether speed makes the game more enjoyable to watch, that is up to individual taste. For example, I usually prefer men’s team sports because I’m used to the speed of the men’s game so the women’s game seems slow, but I enjoy women’s volleyball more than men’s volleyball. The men spike so hard and fast points are over too quick. The slower speed and less explosiveness of the women’s game, for me, makes it more enjoyable to watch. Plus the girls look great in volleyball uniforms.
 
We need to follow the example of all the top world class soccer academies and clubs and recruit our talent from high school basketball and American football teams!
Wait, what?
 

Interesting, but I am confused. Japan's women play more of a Tiki-Taka style of play. I've watched, and they make short rapid passes, playing completely as a team. In this article, he seems to be suggesting a more "Ronaldo-esque" style, using just your own skills to move the ball, instead of team play, (as the Japan women do) where you use your teammates to move the ball. Am I missing something?

Sure, of course the kids could benefit by having their international coach parents start to train them from birth (HEHE)... But I am almost certain that US Soccer already values kids that have some success trying to play like Ronaldo...
 
Interesting, but I am confused. Japan's women play more of a Tiki-Taka style of play. I've watched, and they make short rapid passes, playing completely as a team. In this article, he seems to be suggesting a more "Ronaldo-esque" style, using just your own skills to move the ball, instead of team play, (as the Japan women do) where you use your teammates to move the ball. Am I missing something?

Sure, of course the kids could benefit by having their international coach parents start to train them from birth (HEHE)... But I am almost certain that US Soccer already values kids that have some success trying to play like Ronaldo...

No he is advocating development of ball control in tight spaces via repetition of coerver style soccer drills from simple to increasing complexity. Doing all those drills takes so much time and effort, Byers is saying only a parent (right now dads but in the future moms too) can take the time to train young soccer players.

This is basically what I did with my son. It’s a great way to develop ball control but my kid (and from what I have seen most kids) get bored of doing these drills. Also, I was not a good enough player or trainer to go beyond the most basic of these coerver drills, or show my kid how to translate the skills he acquired from coerver drills to actual play.

However, nobody else was doing this and it helped him reach a hi level of play before he hit the wall of where my limited coaching abilities could take him.
 
"The reasons given for the United States’ World Cup qualifying failure funnel down to one or two issues: We simply don’t have the talent. Or we don’t properly develop talent"
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/27/structural-changes-soccer-worthy-goal-no-guarantee-success/

The latter seems more likely to me...

"The youth system in this country isn’t ideal. The pay-to-play structure has produced a discouraging participation rate as measured by income. Only the upper-middle-class and rich can consistently afford the thousands of dollars a year it costs just for one child to play club soccer.

On top of that, player development loses out to the focus on winning. Bigger and faster players often take priority over skills as a result. But I’m skeptical of the focus on (mostly European) developmental structures as the cure-all for America’s soccer woes, at least in the short term"

European countries only have to scout and develop eligible talent the square mileage of one or two states. That’s with dozens and dozens of professional clubs (England alone has nearly 100) who have development academies. Many have a century or more of entrenchment in their community. Soccer also competes with maybe one or two other sports in terms of popularity. It will grab the best players in Europe almost by default.

The only successful soccer nation that even compares in size and population to the United States is Brazil. We’ll just never have the soccer culture they enjoy. And we do not want to mimic their club system.

Of course, competent youth systems that encourage development help. But the United States is a nascent soccer nation. Soccer does not enjoy the financial stability at any level that football, baseball, or basketball does. Neither U.S. Soccer nor Major League Soccer benefit nearly as much from an essentially free development league in college like the National Football League or National Basketball Association.

CEO of U.S. Club Soccer Kevin Payne says parents in his organization spend around $1.5 billion annually on soccer. That certainly isn’t the only club soccer organization in this country. Who foots that bill to end pay-to-play? U.S. Soccer has a $130-140 million surplus. Put all of that into U.S. club soccer and you’ve chipped away at 10 percent of the cost for a single organization.

We should certainly seek to end pay-to-play club systems and increase focus on playing the game properly. I just don’t think it’s going to be that easy or quick to fix"
 
No he is advocating development of ball control in tight spaces via repetition of coerver style soccer drills from simple to increasing complexity. Doing all those drills takes so much time and effort, Byers is saying only a parent (right now dads but in the future moms too) can take the time to train young soccer players.

This is basically what I did with my son. It’s a great way to develop ball control but my kid (and from what I have seen most kids) get bored of doing these drills. Also, I was not a good enough player or trainer to go beyond the most basic of these coerver drills, or show my kid how to translate the skills he acquired from coerver drills to actual play.

However, nobody else was doing this and it helped him reach a hi level of play before he hit the wall of where my limited coaching abilities could take him.

There was a great segment about Tom Byer on a recent episode of Real Sports (HBO). They also interviewed Kyle Martino who was a big proponent of Byer's methodologies. To be successful Byer believes that "soccer starts at home" (also the name of his book) at a very young age which happens in the dominate World Cup countries but doesn't happen in the US. This is another cultural aspect of soccer that the US doesn't have. His ideas have worked in other countries...will it work in the US? IDK but I think US Soccer should give it a shot, because what they are doing now clearly isn't working.

On another note, I don't buy in to the premise that the best athletes don't play soccer. Our participation in youth soccer dwarfs that of other World Cup successful countries. We certainly have a large enough talent pool to choose 26 of the world's best athletes. I've never looked at the USMNT and thought they weren't athletic. But I have looked at our teams and thought they lacked touch, creativity and good decision making.
 
There was a great segment about Tom Byer on a recent episode of Real Sports (HBO). They also interviewed Kyle Martino who was a big proponent of Byer's methodologies. To be successful Byer believes that "soccer starts at home" (also the name of his book) at a very young age which happens in the dominate World Cup countries but doesn't happen in the US. This is another cultural aspect of soccer that the US doesn't have. His ideas have worked in other countries...will it work in the US? IDK but I think US Soccer should give it a shot, because what they are doing now clearly isn't working.

On another note, I don't buy in to the premise that the best athletes don't play soccer. Our participation in youth soccer dwarfs that of other World Cup successful countries. We certainly have a large enough talent pool to choose 26 of the world's best athletes. I've never looked at the USMNT and thought they weren't athletic. But I have looked at our teams and thought they lacked touch, creativity and good decision making.
Saw that piece on HBO. Really interesting. I think Byer's ideas (though not original) are a great launching point. Yet, he may be the right person for the job.
 
There was a great segment about Tom Byer on a recent episode of Real Sports (HBO). They also interviewed Kyle Martino who was a big proponent of Byer's methodologies. To be successful Byer believes that "soccer starts at home" (also the name of his book) at a very young age which happens in the dominate World Cup countries but doesn't happen in the US. This is another cultural aspect of soccer that the US doesn't have. His ideas have worked in other countries...will it work in the US? IDK but I think US Soccer should give it a shot, because what they are doing now clearly isn't working.

Byer is responsible for the Coerver revolution in Japan, and the spread of Coerver methods in Japan is the reason why there are so many highly technical, skilled Japanese soccer players, both men and women. What worked in Japan could work in America, but I have my doubts because 1) I think American kids and Japanese kids are different in their attitudes towards training, 2) you need huge batches of kids, not just an isolated few, to really get the benefits of Coerver training, and 3) Coerver training benefits the women’s game IMO more than the men’s game.

The drills Byer advocates are great and they will improve in tight ball control, but they are boring for most kids to do and very few kids, like practically none, want to spend a lot of time doing them. I solved this problem with my own kid by just forcing him to do the drills, but I’m pretty hard assed when it comes to training and technique, and it was a pain in the ass to make the kid do it. The kids are more willing to do it if they are doing it with other kids, but no matter how many kids I tried to get to do these drills with my son, none of them would do it beyond a session or two, and several told me they hated doing those drills even though it was making them better.

I think the Japanese people have a great attitude in terms of being willing to put in time and sacrifice to be great or perfect (who else would devote 20 year’s of training to learn how to craft a samurai sword), so if you can convince the Japanese, yea these drills are hard and boring as hell, but if you do them every day for 5 years your kid will be awesome, Japanese parents will make their kids do those drills for 5 years. I think it will be MUCH, MUCH harder to get American kids to do these type of drills as much as you need to do them to get the full benefits.

I also think the Coerver drills are most useful in futsal and the women’s game, not so much the men’s game. Almost all of these Coerver fast footwork drills can’t be done at full speed, and they are easier to do without error when wearing futsal shoes, the studs on cleats make the moves harder. You are not running full speed very much in futsal, and you have to move the ball at crazy angles in tight spaces, so the Coerver moves work really well in futsal. The slower speed of the women’s game also made it easier to do Coerver moves, the slower you run it’s easier to do the move. Plus, unless the female player is built like a slim boy, the women’s change of direction, TBH, is brutally slow. Because these Coerver moves are usually change of direction moves, they are highly effective in tripping up the girls.

My son used to play lot of indoor soccer and he used to look like Ronaldo playing vs high school or even college girls as a 6th or 7th grader. But when he tried the same moves on boys outdoors, he got stripped and abused. The boys were so much harder to beat with the initial move, and even if you beat them, their recovery was so fast most of the moves just didn’t work.

What I’m saying is, Byers approach is better than what we have now and will improve US soccer if we can get kids to do it, but at least for the men’s game, it is not a magic bullet that will solve our problems. It is just one key tool in the toolbox.

On another note, I don't buy in to the premise that the best athletes don't play soccer. Our participation in youth soccer dwarfs that of other World Cup successful countries. We certainly have a large enough talent pool to choose 26 of the world's best athletes. I've never looked at the USMNT and thought they weren't athletic. But I have looked at our teams and thought they lacked touch, creativity and good decision making.

I agree we have enough athletic talent. But the soccer training is so haphazard in this country the best soccer athletes are not always getting the best training. The reality is, especially at younger age groups, the best kids were trained by dads who know what they are doing, but their sons might not necessarily be the best soccer athletes.
 
Byer is responsible for the Coerver revolution in Japan, and the spread of Coerver methods in Japan is the reason why there are so many highly technical, skilled Japanese soccer players, both men and women. What worked in Japan could work in America, but I have my doubts because 1) I think American kids and Japanese kids are different in their attitudes towards training, 2) you need huge batches of kids, not just an isolated few, to really get the benefits of Coerver training, and 3) Coerver training benefits the women’s game IMO more than the men’s game.

The drills Byer advocates are great and they will improve in tight ball control, but they are boring for most kids to do and very few kids, like practically none, want to spend a lot of time doing them. I solved this problem with my own kid by just forcing him to do the drills, but I’m pretty hard assed when it comes to training and technique, and it was a pain in the ass to make the kid do it. The kids are more willing to do it if they are doing it with other kids, but no matter how many kids I tried to get to do these drills with my son, none of them would do it beyond a session or two, and several told me they hated doing those drills even though it was making them better.

I think the Japanese people have a great attitude in terms of being willing to put in time and sacrifice to be great or perfect (who else would devote 20 year’s of training to learn how to craft a samurai sword), so if you can convince the Japanese, yea these drills are hard and boring as hell, but if you do them every day for 5 years your kid will be awesome, Japanese parents will make their kids do those drills for 5 years. I think it will be MUCH, MUCH harder to get American kids to do these type of drills as much as you need to do them to get the full benefits.

I also think the Coerver drills are most useful in futsal and the women’s game, not so much the men’s game. Almost all of these Coerver fast footwork drills can’t be done at full speed, and they are easier to do without error when wearing futsal shoes, the studs on cleats make the moves harder. You are not running full speed very much in futsal, and you have to move the ball at crazy angles in tight spaces, so the Coerver moves work really well in futsal. The slower speed of the women’s game also made it easier to do Coerver moves, the slower you run it’s easier to do the move. Plus, unless the female player is built like a slim boy, the women’s change of direction, TBH, is brutally slow. Because these Coerver moves are usually change of direction moves, they are highly effective in tripping up the girls.

My son used to play lot of indoor soccer and he used to look like Ronaldo playing vs high school or even college girls as a 6th or 7th grader. But when he tried the same moves on boys outdoors, he got stripped and abused. The boys were so much harder to beat with the initial move, and even if you beat them, their recovery was so fast most of the moves just didn’t work.

What I’m saying is, Byers approach is better than what we have now and will improve US soccer if we can get kids to do it, but at least for the men’s game, it is not a magic bullet that will solve our problems. It is just one key tool in the toolbox.



I agree we have enough athletic talent. But the soccer training is so haphazard in this country the best soccer athletes are not always getting the best training. The reality is, especially at younger age groups, the best kids were trained by dads who know what they are doing, but their sons might not necessarily be the best soccer athletes.

I don't know the detailed technical aspects of Byer's or Coerver's training, but my overall impression was that it was more about Byer's philosophy that the parents should be involved with their childs soccer development (touch and relationship with the ball) at a very early age (i.e. soccer starts at home). This concept certainly has played a role in Pulisic becoming a great American player.

Your question of will it work in the US is a good one. Unfortunately, most American parents just want to pay the money to drop their kid off with a coach to teach them soccer for 3-6 hours a week. They would rather delegate the authority and pay someone than do it themselves. Ironically, its probably some of the same parents that are complaining on another thread about how Club soccer is a scam. While I don't care for the sales tactics and BS that many clubs/coaches spew, you can't expect even a great coach to turn your kid into a World Cup player with only a few hours of training a week. If we want our kids to play at the highest level, we as parents need to take more ownership in our kids training. While training your own kid is way easier said then done you can still encourage your child to get touches at home, play with other kids in the backyard, etc.
 
Back
Top