Not trying to be facetious but then you aren't teaching him right. A toe poke can be effective if the ball is right there in the goal box and you are trying to get it under the keeper before he can dive on it, or the one on one if you can poke it past right before the keeper smashes into your legs and jump over the keeper. To say never toe poke is hyperbole. Yes, the toe poke can prevent other development and should be discouraged at the early ages...but to say never toe poke is wrong. It's this type of orthodoxy which limits the creativity of our players.
US Men's National Team - what went wrong?
- Thread starter Hired Gun
- Start date
Not trying to be facetious but then you aren't teaching him right. A toe poke can be effective if the ball is right there in the goal box and you are trying to get it under the keeper before he can dive on it, or the one on one if you can poke it past right before the keeper smashes into your legs and jump over the keeper. To say never toe poke is hyperbole. Yes, the toe poke can prevent other development and should be discouraged at the early ages...but to say never toe poke is wrong. It's this type of orthodoxy which limits the creativity of our players.
Sounds like a fun car ride home.
Love the hard-core approach. I do the same and really can't hang with all the parents who have such an incorrect (and often stated!) view of their own kid's talent and prospects. Every once in a while I will even get a reality check by asking another knowledgeable parent their view of the kids' (including mine) performances. It's been very helpful.
charlie murphy
SILVER
let's talk about the merit of the toe poke. yeah that's it . not that I agree with Rich but grace I think you miss the point. maybe if coaches went to more classes on the "art of the Toe poke" that would fix what is wrong with US soccer. oh yeah now we are back on topic.
tylerdurden
SILVER
http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/201...a-resigns-as-us-mens-national-team-head-coach
One down, at least one more to go.
One down, at least one more to go.
Whoever is responsible for the heading restrictions and buildout lines should walk the plank next.
Ok. So I decided to do a little research on youth soccer in England and Germany and guess what. You pay to play. The way you pay varies from club to club and there are tons of clubs in those two countries. Some clubs in smaller towns have the "youth league" which is less expensive and then they funnel the better players to the youth club teams. Some are in the National League or 3rd tiers. These are smaller towns but even then there is a cost to be on that team that comes with eventual travel. I do not know if the players on these "club teams" are assets and can be sold to larger clubs if they are good enough. Germany has clubs like many of ours in America where again they join a team and pay "membership" which again sounds like fees or dues but it is a payment.
How many European kids actually make it to a true Academy. The rest are paying to play a game they love.
Admittedly, I gave up after England and Germany so I can not answer for countries such as Italy or Spain or Brazil or Chile or Russia or Nigeria or list any other country. But cities and counties need funds to keep the grass green and clubs need qualified directors and uniforms that mimic Man City are not free so I believe pay to play is here for a bit and not just in America. By the way Canadian Hockey is pay to play and they seem to be pretty good.
With that said I think these countries have a better scouting network and a smaller geographical region to scout players and possibly move assets from club to club. Yes these German kids that develop and are being developed are considered assets as they can be sold to larger clubs or receive solidarity payments down the road. So maybe in that case changes need to be made in scouting and how these youth clubs are viewed by our governing body. Christian Pulisic was not developed by the DA. His youth coach deserves credit as does NIKE ID2 for identifying him at u14. If we can funnel more money to clubs then they can invest in the coaching and training and maybe development in improves
Before you all pile on and say that I believe in pay to play, the answer is yes and no. I wish it was less expensive as I have two playing club soccer. I do believe my coach is a good coach who believes in the foundation of the game and is not in it just for the win. I believe in his style and his passion and his knowledge and thus I am willing to pay coaching fees as the club does not pay for him to coach. Do we win every game "nope", every tournament "nope" do my kids love the game "yep" and are they having fun and learning "definitely". I day dream like all of us to see my son walkout on a stadium field and my daughter to play D1. If if doesn't happen (and may probably won't), I can live with myself and the decisions we made around this sport .
How many European kids actually make it to a true Academy. The rest are paying to play a game they love.
Admittedly, I gave up after England and Germany so I can not answer for countries such as Italy or Spain or Brazil or Chile or Russia or Nigeria or list any other country. But cities and counties need funds to keep the grass green and clubs need qualified directors and uniforms that mimic Man City are not free so I believe pay to play is here for a bit and not just in America. By the way Canadian Hockey is pay to play and they seem to be pretty good.
With that said I think these countries have a better scouting network and a smaller geographical region to scout players and possibly move assets from club to club. Yes these German kids that develop and are being developed are considered assets as they can be sold to larger clubs or receive solidarity payments down the road. So maybe in that case changes need to be made in scouting and how these youth clubs are viewed by our governing body. Christian Pulisic was not developed by the DA. His youth coach deserves credit as does NIKE ID2 for identifying him at u14. If we can funnel more money to clubs then they can invest in the coaching and training and maybe development in improves
Before you all pile on and say that I believe in pay to play, the answer is yes and no. I wish it was less expensive as I have two playing club soccer. I do believe my coach is a good coach who believes in the foundation of the game and is not in it just for the win. I believe in his style and his passion and his knowledge and thus I am willing to pay coaching fees as the club does not pay for him to coach. Do we win every game "nope", every tournament "nope" do my kids love the game "yep" and are they having fun and learning "definitely". I day dream like all of us to see my son walkout on a stadium field and my daughter to play D1. If if doesn't happen (and may probably won't), I can live with myself and the decisions we made around this sport .
The toe poke illustrates the various schools of US soccer.
The "guided self-learning people"....where we are right now....would say that the coach should almost always discourage kids from toe poking since it builds bad habits...at a minimum the coach probably should show the kids how to learn the toe poke because it's a waste of precious limited time (instead they should learn it from their parent or private trainer).
The "let 'em play people"....which have US soccer's ear right now....would say that coaches should be discouraging their kids from toe poking...instead the coach should allow players to explore and find the answers on their own.
The "skills based" people would say it's a coaches job to teach kids when to toe poke and when not to...it's probably an advanced skills which should be deferred til later but it should definitely be taught, preferably in a line against the goalkeeper.
Ghostwriter
SILVER
Change starts with the evaluation process. The last 30 years players are identified at the National level based on their athletic, size, speed, and physical play. This is a recipe that doesn't work once the players hit their late teens and 20s. Countless players who have tremendous soccer IQ's, touch, movement on and off the ball are loss in this process. It starts at the club level and the American belief in athletism over everything else. We compare soccer to football or basketball players as if that somehow validates their athletism and place on a soccer pitch. We hear that in a country of 300 million our best athletes don't play soccer, so that is why we aren't any good. In reality in a country this size it has nothing to do with any of that, it comes down to changing the mindset of those in charge of players development and evaluations. We see players all the time who are bigger and faster at 11, 12, 13, 14 that just stand next to a defender and wait for the over the top ball only to sprint after it and score or the punishing physical defender who goes hard after every ball and gets rid of it within a second or two by sending it up as far as possible. These scenarios play out at the youth levels every week and do nothing for development. The club coaches, parent's, etc yelling at a player for playing a ball back instead of forward. Players are pigeon holed into positions at a young age based on their physical attributes not their soccer IQ'S. This mentality has turned the US National Team into the blue collar working hard team for decades, because when your whole development and player identification is based on speed, athletism, size, and physical play all you have left in your 20s and 30s is a bunch of players that have to work hard to even compete. Eventually you run into countries who have a greater soccer IQ, better touch, and still work hard and you get beat, dominated, or both. How many times have you heard those Americans have grit and never say die mentality? Great characteristics we all feel proud of but why can't we on top of that have players that know how to make runs without the ball, see angles and passing lanes instead of forcing everything forward, posses the ball for more than 3 or 4 passes, let the ball do a lot of the work as no one moves as fast it, or have the confidence to build out of the back and not just send it up. You know why we have had prolific players who are known for their great headers Wambach, Lalas in the American system because that's how we play the ball in the air. Let's find players that can accomplish moving the ball on the ground more than the air and have the soccer IQ and creativity to compete with the rest of the world. Until we change the foundation of our evaluation process starting at the youth levels we will forever be mediocre.
I can answer the Spain/Italy part. It's not that dissimilar. But at least there, the clubs you are talking about are more like AYSO clubs...the fees are much more affordable and they play up until late on very tiny micro pitches. Most of the clubs are associated with schools or towns and aren't really "clubs" in our sense of the word...they are more like Boys and Girls Club. And yes, you are right, there are some intermediate clubs that travel, but again the fees are no where near as ridiculous as ours because the coaches aren't professionals (they know more than our AYSO parents, though, because they played themselves when they were little and follow the sport). The key difference is that there is very early ID and those kids that are on a pro track get sent to the escuelas, or academies. They don't pay...they get their education (both soccer and academic) free...but it's a job for them....not fun and games, as the article posted from the Guardian shows (8 hour bus ride!). There isn't any expectation that the kids playing for the escuelas will go to university...they are on the sports track and they treat sports with the same seriousness that someone on the academic, civil service or art track would treat their jobs. For the ones playing for the clubs, there isn't the same expectation of their kids being soccer stars one day or on development....it's just about having fun....met a mom in Italy who was moving to Puerto Rico (hope that worked out
) to get her son a chance to play college ball in the US because he wasn't good enough to play pro and qualify for one of the academies.The more we talk about this the more I'm beginning to think that the biggest problem in our system is that we don't have parents that play (and so are obsessed with things like tournament wins, and don't understand building the possession game). That means we should be optimistic for when the current generation has children and begins to kick the ball with their kids in the park instead of tossing the football, but it means, regardless of what we do, it will still be a generation at least before we can challenge the first tier soccer powers.
outside!
DA
There is no need for kids under 10 to head the ball. None. If a talented player cannot learn proper heading technique and tactics as a teenager, then they are not talented enough to play high level soccer. Besides, maybe they will learn to be better at getting the ball on the ground an controlling it. CTE is real and non-concussive blows to the head contribute to it. Those facts are not going away. Neither are the insurance companies that will raise the premiums of or refuse to insure any organization that encourages pre-teens to use their heads to deliver impacts.
eastbaysoccer
GOLD
It’s not what went wrong but what will happen next?
1) mass firings within US Soccer with a new direction and model not to include any DA system which has proven over 10 years to be a bust for the most part.
2) perhaps the introduction of paid academy/boarding school (w a stipend for the family) for the very best players? Players will be scouted at tournaments, games , trainings. 50 players per class for a total of the USA’s best 200 players evaluated by a board.
1) mass firings within US Soccer with a new direction and model not to include any DA system which has proven over 10 years to be a bust for the most part.
2) perhaps the introduction of paid academy/boarding school (w a stipend for the family) for the very best players? Players will be scouted at tournaments, games , trainings. 50 players per class for a total of the USA’s best 200 players evaluated by a board.
Mystery Train
GOLD
This ^^^^ is spot on.
I'll also add that 1) There isn't enough accountability within our culture when it comes to soccer because we don't care enough . . . yet. Not that I'm advocating for the kind of insanity that comes with small, developing countries and their passion for soccer, but I know there are countries where if you were a player on a team that lost out on WC qualifying with that type of play, you wouldn't be able to show your face on the streets for months. The players and coaches and ESPECIALLY the USSF simply don't have that kind of pressure and accountability here. Except for small pockets of passion like this forum, the culture at large here really doesn't much care that we missed out on the WC. The USSF needs a napalm cleansing from top to bottom, but it would take massive outside pressure to generate such a thing. And 2) the overwhelming majority of participants in our youth soccer "system" are aiming for college soccer, not professional play. So the system is set up around finding and developing kids who, as 14 year old HS freshmen, are recruit-able for college coaches and who will hit the height of their soccer achievement as 20 year olds. And because early blooming athletic specimens will almost always dominate games played by teenagers that's the type of player our NT ends up with. That's not how professional international clubs look for and develop talent because they have a much longer term view. Our system seeks early bloomers with size and speed for the college game and such a purpose attracts mostly middle-class families who are aiming for college in the first place. I'm sure Altidore and Gonzalez were absolute beasts on the youth soccer circuit as 14 year olds. But guess what, we'll never develop a cohesive national team capable of competing at the highest levels without a legitimate pathway for players with aspirations of playing beyond the age of 21 and a system of coaching and development that isn't myopically focused on such a short window of time in a player's life.
coachrefparent
GOLD
I wonder how the rest of the world dominates without all the hispanic true ballers on roster?
They don't have to be good at it the first day, but they should be made aware it is an option, along with inside of the foot, outside, laces, heel and sole.
DBSoccerFan
BRONZE
Ghost - I couldn't agree more and you are rocking on your insight. I am judging and seeing things as a parent of youth player and playing on the women's side. I see the women's side going in the direction you mention the men's program is devoid of. I don't know how delineated USSF is on the men's and women's side when it comes to governing bodies, long range planning or development. I believe the women's side is on the right track with their evaluation process. Vision and implementation by its nature is a work in progress and time is needed to see if the processes are on track. We can't base it on one tournament or game, but over a long period of time. I see it on the U14 (women's) level with the current selection of the youth pool. Personally watching two of the selectees on a daily basis and the the team around them would confirm my belief that the U.S. Women's vision and development program are on point and the men's side should look hard at consolidating that vision. I say this also by seeing my daughter benefit from her success in your former thoughts of only being athletic, strong and fast versus your latter evaluation fixes. She now needs to quickly and diligently adapt to this latter evaluation process to be successful going forward. From a husband's perspective, women once again have it right, unless MAP tells me I'm all jacked up ....
Your opinion may be unpopular, but unfortunately you may end up being right. I think this fits in with Mystery Train's narrative regarding accountability, and lack thereof. I get the impression that US Soccer is more concerned about protecting the MLS than they are about developing the USMNT (for example, training and solidiarity payments).
I've kind of scoffed at the concept that US club soccer is mostly for upper middle class kids. However, upon reflection there is some truth to that. My son has been playing Flight 1 soccer for 4 years with two different clubs and the families are predominately upper middle class. I see this in a lot of SD and OC clubs although it doesn't seem as prevalent in LA.
MakeAPlay
DA
I hate to say it too but it is a country club sport on the girls side at the higher levels. Which is really weird because that is the opposite of how soccer is viewed worldwide as in most countries it is the game of the masses. Leave it to the USA to turn something inexpensive, beautiful and simple into something complicated, ugly and expensive.
bruinblue14
SILVER
^^^ I really hope you're right. Watched one of NWSL semifinal games last weekend (Courage vs Red Stars) both of which have several USWNT players and it was kind of awful to watch. No more than 3 passes connected. So many passes to no where and no one. So much panic on the ball. It just seemed like they didn't know how to play any way other than just run run run as fast as you can. The lack of intelligent play was difficult to watch.