When I watched it live, I wondered at the strange bounce before the ball went out. Then when the referee called for a goal kick, I wondered even more. The first replay revealed the ball went out of the defender's hand, so goal kick was the wrong call. Then it came down to a judgement call between corner and penalty.
World Cup 2018 thread
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
When I watched it live, I wondered at the strange bounce before the ball went out. Then when the referee called for a goal kick, I wondered even more. The first replay revealed the ball went out of the defender's hand, so goal kick was the wrong call. Then it came down to a judgement call between corner and penalty.
So is it too early to consider the lessons for the world cup and how they apply to US soccer? I'll take my swipe:
1. The possession game: when Spain won the World Cup everyone rushed out to copy it. But I think the world cup has definitively shown that possession for possessions sake doesn't always get the job done, with Spain scoring a record for possession but being routinely unable to penetrate.
2. The high press: The legacy of Germany's victory still plays out. The high press is an effective means of countering the possession game, and forcing errors upon the keeper/defenders, as Croatia showed.
3. Negative soccer v. the English long ball: But I don't think a definitive style came out of the world cup that other teams will try to imitate. France played a very negative game, relying on possession, but also relying on a fast counter attack. England on the other hand played a long game focused on set plays. Most of their goals were off of direct kicks or corners, which is something US coaches don't spend a lot of time on particularly on the lower levels. Sure, you can say England was on the weaker end of the brackett and lost, but they also have had success in the U-20 with the same style. France is also more academy centric (which is why they were able to incorporate and nurture their immigrant style), while England's youth soccer is organized more like our AYSO and rec leagues where everyone can play and talent is identified later.
4. Headers: Heading was very important in this tournament. Might we play a price for our pushing back the introduction of headers due to concussion concerns?
5. Defense/Offense: Second tier teams were often able to frustrate possession game teams by emphasizing their defensive back line, including the Spain v. Morrocco game. While its a problem worldwide, the US doesn't give as much emphasis to training defenders (where the most athletic kids drift the glory positions of 9 and 10). Similarly, teams like Argentina and Portugal that relied solely on their one world class striker weren't able to advance very far either.
1. The possession game: when Spain won the World Cup everyone rushed out to copy it. But I think the world cup has definitively shown that possession for possessions sake doesn't always get the job done, with Spain scoring a record for possession but being routinely unable to penetrate.
2. The high press: The legacy of Germany's victory still plays out. The high press is an effective means of countering the possession game, and forcing errors upon the keeper/defenders, as Croatia showed.
3. Negative soccer v. the English long ball: But I don't think a definitive style came out of the world cup that other teams will try to imitate. France played a very negative game, relying on possession, but also relying on a fast counter attack. England on the other hand played a long game focused on set plays. Most of their goals were off of direct kicks or corners, which is something US coaches don't spend a lot of time on particularly on the lower levels. Sure, you can say England was on the weaker end of the brackett and lost, but they also have had success in the U-20 with the same style. France is also more academy centric (which is why they were able to incorporate and nurture their immigrant style), while England's youth soccer is organized more like our AYSO and rec leagues where everyone can play and talent is identified later.
4. Headers: Heading was very important in this tournament. Might we play a price for our pushing back the introduction of headers due to concussion concerns?
5. Defense/Offense: Second tier teams were often able to frustrate possession game teams by emphasizing their defensive back line, including the Spain v. Morrocco game. While its a problem worldwide, the US doesn't give as much emphasis to training defenders (where the most athletic kids drift the glory positions of 9 and 10). Similarly, teams like Argentina and Portugal that relied solely on their one world class striker weren't able to advance very far either.
INFAMEE
SILVER ELITE
Ronaldo with Argentina and not Messi would've went further than they did.
France has for many years produced World Class players consistently. It was just a matter of having the right coach.
Modric
James
Ronaldo
All did an exceptional job.
outside!
DA
I do not believe limiting headers at the younger ages was primarily to prevent concussions. The current research into CTE seems to show that repetitive sub-concussive blows to the head have a cumulative effect on the brain. Since the skull is not fully formed for many younger players, I fully support the delaying the introduction of heading to the game. If a serious soccer player cannot learn proper and game effective heading technique after they are allowed to head in games, maybe they are not coordinated enough to play at the next level.
Messi>CR7
GOLD
In the context of discussing World Cup competitiveness in a soccer forum, yes, limiting headers might hurt us. For 99.999% of kids who won't play in the 2026 World Cup, more protection is better.
Definitelynotanotherref
SILVER ELITE
I do not think that the US will fall behind in headers. The reason is because that is the one thing the U.S. has produced consistent talent in has been our ability to challenge for balls in the air.
There is a reason that the US exports more goalkeepers relative to the other positions. It is because that is how kids train themselves when they are not playing soccer.
If you vacation in Brazil and go to a beach. Instead of beach volleyball nets and games taking over the sand, they have beach soccer and "soccer volleyball". It is no wonder that the players with the best individual ball skills typically come from South American countries.
If you think about all the games our children play on the playground, they are games around tracking balls in the air and gaining position over opponents who are also trying to catch it. Basketball, football, (ultimate) Frisbee, volleyball(sort of) That one game where the ball goes around a pole on a string, that one game where a kid chucks a tennis ball in the air to a group of 20 kids and the first kid to catch a ball 3 times is the new "king" that gets to throw the ball. And set plays are so similar to an american football style of play. 30 seconds of setup for a short physical battle that lasts 5 seconds. If anything, the fact that we make kids focus on their foot skills might help us in the long run.
Definitelynotanotherref
SILVER ELITE
For the organized sports I agree. But when my little brother was in 6th grade, he invented a game that he played with all his friends called "red card soccer". It is a game where only red card-able fouls were allowed and if you took the ball from someone without committing a red card offence, then you would give up a free kick.
Needless to say, it was very popular, even amongst the kids that didn't play club soccer.
jpeter
PREMIER
Interesting reminds me of the underground fight clubs of my day..
My kid gets labeled as a aggressive player sometimes, red card soccer I don't know man sounds like a invitation for broken bones to me but I don't know I guess it could work out among friends or something?
Not expressing an opinion on your theory that aerial play in the US should compensate or delayed headers. You might very well be right...don't have enough data for that.
But a side note: my hunch is the goalkeeper thing might be changing. The US has produced goalkeepers because, from the list of sports you had besides tetherball and volleyball, kids play catching sports in the US. The theory has been the US can produce great keepers, even if they get started later in the position, because kids are familiar with catching. But the balls (particularly the recent world cup and pro league balls of the last 2 years) have become so aerodynamic, and the speed for shots has been breaking new records, that keepers are increasingly finding it difficult to catch. U.S. keeper training still really emphasizes catching. There is a theory floating around out there that it emphasizes too much catching and that (as much as the US team's aging keepers) explains why some or our old school keepers like Howard have had a tougher time on the international stage. Since the girls kicks don't clock in as hard as for the men, it's less of an issue on the girl's side. Plus keepers are expected now to do much more than just be shot blockers including playing with their feet. USC (formerly NSCAA) is still recommending kids don't specializing as keepers until age 12....but the European academies are specializing keepers now as early as age 8. Could be wrong, but there's an argument to be made that the US edge in goalkeeping might not last very much longer (I can make the counter argument too).
Definitelynotanotherref
SILVER ELITE
It's red card soccer, not "go to jail soccer" or "go to hospital soccer". You gotta respect the rules, even in "red card soccer" haha.
One of my brothers friends that played red-card soccer with him became a captain for USD soccer team. Maybe it toughened him up?
As a referee, I have always rewarded physical, aggressive players as long as I deem their challenges "fair". Even so far as to award fouls against them even if they stay on their feet but there is no advantage. On the flipside, the players that go down at a moments contact, I have to double check to myself in my head "was the contact really enough to make him go down? Or did he just feel contact and go down on his own?".
Definitelynotanotherref
SILVER ELITE
I was a keeper when I played, I did indeed have trouble around age 16-17 when the kids were hitting the ball too hard and I was still expected by my team and coaches to hold on to the ball. My biggest fear was trying to catch the ball, barely missing it, and setting up an easy should 6yrds from goal as opposed to parrying it away for a corner. Alas, I gave up a few bad goals because I tried to hold onto the ball. I imagine more formal training and experience would have taught me to parry the ball more.
My theory mostly revolves around the idea that we pump so much training into our own soccer players, but have had limited results because our kids are not "immersed" into soccer like other cultures are. I am just guessing that it goes both ways and it won't matter how much training and money and stuff the goalies are getting across the pond because they are not immersing themselves like Americans are.
Volleyball and tether ball teach ball tracking, footwork, and positioning. The skill of navigating a crowd is a skill in itself. Do you think the formal goalie training teaches their goalies how to effectively navigate a crowd. Combine the two skills of getting through a crowd and tracking a ball, and you have the goalie skill in preventing a corner kick/set piece goal before the shot/header even occurs.
Latin American countries produce best shooters and midfielders because they glorify the ball skills (even if they nutmeg the player and the ball goes out of bounds, they still get praise for the nutmeg). European players and spectators get a hard on when they see/do a crunching "clean" tackle so they produce decent defenders. (Sorry Hispanics, your defenders usually suck, they are just the wanna be midfielders that failed). And Americans are idiots so they get to be goalies. Also, the position, the goalie, is most similar to the position of "the pitcher" in baseball, which is the most glorified defensive position.