I think you’ve hit the nail on the head why Manchester struggled in the video while tfa did not. Tfa was doing exactly what you suggested (they just weren’t doing it very well…partially because at that age it’s really hard to comprehend…but do it enough times and you’ll get it right every so often). Manchester is obsessed with forming diamonds and can’t get it into the attacking third (they aren’t 100% possession based either…the gk does punt…but that’s not where the emphasis is…it’s not what they are learning in training at that age) The distinction though is Europe (including the English) teaches possession first. Sure but for the Manchester gk the score should have been 4 or 5 to 1. But again you gotta look at the results to see who knows what they are doing when training professionals: the us or Europe, machester or tfa? The fundamental American flaw is we dont recognize the distinction between the best ways to play soccer v the best way to teach it.
United Soccer League Launches “USL YOUTH,” New Platform to Elevate the Youth Player Experience
- Thread starter soccerpalace
- Start date
The USA gets their trainers from Europe. Have you heard all the coaching accents yelling across the fields any given weekend?
TFA, at the youngest age groups, has great technical skills and plays possession. They lose players to other clubs as they get older and that's the problem for TFA. Our young kids can compete against European teams because we are just as good or better at that age. We start failing later.
Our biggest problem in the USA is not training our 14-18 years old properly because our younger age groups are competitive. At age 14-20, the training should ramp up but it doesn't. Clubs don't do classrooms (via zoom) twice a week to anaylyze team videos and professional games for tactical and technical errors, they don't work with individuals to continue developing all their technical skills, and they care too much about the win.
High school soccer, where it's most convenient to develop our players based on our current soccer culture (no/few serious live in academies), is not supported by the US Soccer.
Amen regarding the 14-20. You are spot on there. One big reason is time. An 1 1/2 practice 3-4 times a week is not enough to do that (in contrast to the academies which can cover technical skills, classroom and video because of the enhanced time they have to work with).
I disagree with you regarding the youngers....I disagree with you at the younger they are learning possession but we've beat that horse to death so agree to disagree. If that really were our culture, I wouldn't have had to have fought all the way up the chain for my GK kid to take his own goalkicks, and it wouldn't be a topic that so often comes up in GK coach circles that folks like Jeff have to go on and on about.
As for TFA, there's not much farther up to go so I don't really think the "lose players to other clubs" argument goes. They are MLS Next, so the only place for them really to lose players to is Galaxy or LAFC...maybe Strikers....and given the reach of those 2 academies how many is it...1-3 players per year get selected off of a TFA team?
As to the coaches, that "crazy mom" soccer book actually makes a real good point which I've raised here before. It's not just who we get from Europe. 1. We are getting people who couldn't hack it over there, and 2. We are largely because of the language issue getting people from England and Mexico....both countries with horrible soccer cultures of their own (England has improved in the last decade but the new timers have to please the old timers, but I'd actually argue Mexico's is worse than than our own).
I thought your argument was England is better because they develop players to focus only on possession at the youngest age groups? Doesn't matter.
Parents spend a lot of time and money traveling for games and tournaments. If we cut out some of that at the older age groups, promote and improve high school trainings, and put that money and time on the weekends towards tactical and individual technical trainings, we'd see a huge a huge improvement.
Parents, reach out to your clubs and tell that you are willing to pay for weekend trainings rather than traveling. Money is going to the hotels, airplanes, restaurants, and large soccer complexes in the middle of nowhere. If all that money, 10K or more per child, goes to the clubs with better trainings, that's a win win situation for everyone! Imagine Strikers, Slammers, Surf, Albion charging 10K per player and improving our national team pools?
Better doesn't mean great...just better. Our coaching roots as outlined in the crazy soccer mom book go back to English imports in the 1990s. England in the 1990s wasn't doing too great with soccer training (leading to their struggles in the current century). England's academies wholesale adopted the training approaches of the continent given the need to fill the EPL machine. England, at least on the academy level, is better now than it was in the 1990s. Can't speak to how their grassroots are doings...only have 1 data point which is my son's GK/video channel pen pal...from what little I got the grassroots seemed the same as us, but again, it doesn't matter because their grassroots is much lower stake than ours. Just speculating now, but it might also be one reason I hadn't thought of why the very young Manchester team struggled (you have a very strong intuition for which I congratulate you). Another reason BTW is some of the younger English coaches which stay out here came over in the first place to play US college.
I think your weekend suggest would be a good one but it would have to be the right type of training. It has to be one that recreates the tactical situations on the field at the older levels, not just a 1/4 field of rondos and shooting drills from inside the 18. As mentioned previously, the limitations on that are field space and like competition (instead of just the same team member over and over again). One thing which would really be a great learning tool for the olders are scrimmages where the coaches can freeze the action to direct the team, and/or on which they could go straight to footage after the game.
There are enough high school age teams within each club to create scrimmages for tactical learning. Technical and striking training needs to be part of it too. This would be so much better than driving and flying around all over the country for games and constantly looking for trainings too.
The problem at the high school ages is the disparate skill. There is a world of difference between flight 1 and EA (the MLS Next Teams remember have their fodder responsibilities which is what drives that machine and because people wouldn't be just happy with them being used as fodder, they need competition and games of their own), or ECNL and ECRL. There's a world of difference (at least among the boys if you look at any male freshman v a senior) in even 6 months of age. Finding "like" competition is what drives the commuting...out of the non-academy MLS clubs in SoCal maybe strikers could do it???....which means two ways to do it: 1. mix and match ages and levels and genders (say the 09 EA team v. the 10 MLS Next Team)...one of kiddo's clubs did this...it worked sometimes imperfectly...coaches need to get it right which is work which may not pan out and those 2 teams can only go up so often against each other before the kids get bored or frustrated, particularly males, not to mention the ego swipe at the parents (you mean you are such a bad coach that our team lost to a team 1 year younger than itself...no one wants to hear yeah that's why little Johnny [in this case Juan] isn't MLS Next Core) or 2. just accept 1 side is fodder for the other (usually the stronger team being the fodder, all appearances to the contrary) and try to focus on particular aspects, like our offense or defense
put the strong defenders on one team and the strong attackers on the other team. It tends to balance things out. It's not going to be perfect but it'll be better. Driving once in a while for tough competition is fine but not every other weekend. The consistently good trainings are more important than lots of competitive games because that's just a recipe for injury at their growing age.
Los Angeles, IE, OC and San Diego all have enough competition within their respective areas to minimize driving and focus on development. Be creative and practice with USL teams, etc.
Anything is better than paying 15K a year to fly all over the country and not have time- or money to actually improve.
It may just be Gk prejudice, or perhaps the focus on my own coaching training when I got my licenses, but I think there's a lot of truth that the game is the best teacher, especially at the older ages. Nothing can really recreate the pressure and quick decision making required in the game. My bigger concern is that there isn't a very good way for kids to get feedback on the game. Once they get feedback, a lot of it is abstractions (or in game yelling) days after the game has occurred and memories are shaky. But I don't disagree with your points generally....all good.
The best coaches put a good stake on every scrimmage in order to put the players under pressure.
Karlton Athletic
SILVER
Why am I subsidizing improving the national team pools? US Soccer and MLS should be subsidizing that. I think my kid's a good player, but I don't think he'll ever be a pro, let alone play on the National team (though as a biased Dad, I do sometimes let the marketing convince me otherwise), so spending money on this past weekend's Vegas tournament was about improving as a player AND having a good time with his friends. It was a blast, and way better than more drills and scrimmages on the weekend instead.
This wouldn't be the right program for your family. A trip to vegas is never bad
Cause we have a unified pyramid unlike Europe which divides everyone into academy and rec. The academy players don't have this problem because they are getting tactical footage review, conditioning and technical work on top of their team work. The soccer system can't be all things to everyone and do it well: rec players, players looking for higher competition and to have fun and win and vegas tournaments, future college players, future pros. Sockma's system is an attempt to recreate the academies since we don't have real academies (and none at all for the girls) for future pro and college players. Otherwise, you'll just have the tier 1 (ECNL/MLS Next or whatever) parents complain hey why aren't we in Vegas winning trophies.
Not the same. 1 is I have to do pushups or run laps. The other is in the parents and coaches come down on me and everyone blames me for making a mistake when it matters. It's why I told the story about the defenders on 1 of kiddo's teams that were afraid of getting the ball. Put the same kids in Latino league and tell them go have fun and all of a sudden they are Ronaldo.
Karlton Athletic
SILVER
Yeah, but club is expensive already and your suggestion was to double the costs to parents to help the national team (via the lottery of finding a good coach at a good club), whereas I think US Soccer should be lowering the barrier to entry.
p.s. touches on another factor. Soccer is a game of mistakes. But the United States in particular (the west in general, but the US is THE prime place this is happening) has become very adverse to mistakes. A friend, Megan McArdle of the Washington Post, wrote a good book on the subject: "The Upside of Down...why Failing well is the Key to success".
Strong players already see a *lot* of internal scrimmages like that. It gets a bit repetitive. Every time, Madison guards Sally, because no one else can do it.
I'm only referring to the age group of 14-19 and for those that want to try to get very serious about their soccer. I'm actually reducing the cost of soccer because right now, MLS Next, ECNL and GA all cost around $15K.
If your player and family just wants a traveling team and you would rather spend that money going to Vegas with the team in lieu of better training then you have many options. I'm not advocating this change for all soccer levels, but just those that want to develop more after 14-19.
This should be done through different age groups and close by clubs. I'm not advocating for the elimination of all games. Just less traveling games and tournaments while using the money saved to actually work on developing our players.
Sally sounds like a spectacular player.
It's an interesting idea. Certainly would help with the over use injuries.
Games are fun, though. I don't know if mine would keep playing if there were only 12 games a year.
Of course, they only get about 12 good games per year anyway, so maybe.
Madison is better, but no one notices her because she plays defense.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Numbers are always going to be fuzzy, and locations are going to vary - but $15K per year per player as an average cost to the family seems very, very high. Every few weeks someone posts up the same "Wait, so how much does everyone pay" question on all the various online groups, and it sure seems to be closer to $5K for most of the top leagues, with a possible range of almost nothing up to that 5 digit cost you estimated. Of course some can factor in traveling to multiple out of state tournaments, flying with a family of 4, while on the other end there are others who have all direct costs covered by the club and have theoretically nothing out of pocket. Thinking that there is an average of $15K per player, so $300K per team, to allocate in various better ways - seems wildly optimistic. For what it's worth, MLS Next and ECNL parents are paying nothing close to this, in a HCOL area in NorCal.
Madison also quickly learns all of Sally's tricks. After a while, my GK son knows where a shooter will shoot from, what they'll do, what kind of shot they'll try to develop (cutback v. through ball), what foot they'll use, even against in club teams. A new team surprises him and forces him to adapt. Very good point.
I think it's an interesting idea. Sockma is trying to recreate the academy experience given what we have to work with without building an academy (the limited time, the expense). Since the boys have a [somewhat limited compared to Europe] academy option, it's more of a necessity on the girl's end, as sockma justly notes for serious players. I agree, however, that the kids would miss the games, and most importantly the parents would demand what's up (I've just about come to the conclusion we parents are the worst thing about soccer in the US). It also would seem like a lot of work for the coaches to actually get it right, which is also part of the Chesterton's Fence of the issue. Soccereconomics pointed out, IIRC, that the best games (at least from a spectator point of view) are the ones where the team you are rooting for have an 80% chance of winning, not necessarily the close ones that are an actual contest....turns out humans like their teams winning by being challenged but not overly challenged...they want the Harlem Globetrotters but with the Washington Generals winning every so often