WWC 2023

[watfly]

The transport is absolutely an issue particularly if to play on a high level team you are commuting an hour+ to get to where you need to go (whether it be LA traffic or a hub like Seattle where there's only 1 MLS team).

There are plenty of opportunities to play including AYSO and Latino league and high school. My kid has played Latino league and was worried it would be AYSO...it's not...some really great players there mixed in with AYSO Core level players. Problem is pro scouts and colleges do not look at this. They only look at the letter league clubs with access and a certain very limited number of high schools mostly in SoCal. The consolidation in Socal has made this worse as former independent clubs are struggled or getting absorbed by the big giants which raises the fees.

My son has played as well for Latino based clubs. I can tell you finance is certainly a dissuader for some of the kids, even with MLS Next subsidies. I've seen some including one really talented player drop when the fees get too high. Yes, there are scholarships particularly at the more suburban clubs. But it also caps the number of players those clubs can take given that someone needs to pay the fee...and some of it is cultural...there's a fear on some of those clubs if they get too ghetto it might turn off white/Asian paying customers (who are therefore reluctant also to play for largely Latino based teams).

Finally, I used to always assume the soccer IQ was higher in Latino based communities due to the kids playing pickup at school than white communities. I can tell you that assumption of mine was wrong. Soccer IQ, even among those who follow the sport, in Latino communities is relatively low. For reference, look at the social media where Club America supporters say the game was rigged because it was called against America and not Nashville: the Nashville keeper had a foot on the line which is within the rules, the America keeper did not....it was absolutely the right call. We spent time in Spain and the soccer IQ there even for their rec leagues is much higher than in our Latino (largely Mexican and central American) communities. They talk soccer with the expertise some American families talk gridiron football positions and strategies. My father, who played for the lower level Peruvian pro teams, once got into an argument with a youth ref in SoCal over whether a throw in should be considered offside (you can't be offside on a throw in dear father).

There have been some arguments floating around on social media that girls soccer will change once more Latina girls begin to enter it. That argument is wrong. And it hasn't really changed as much for the men despite that Latinos are heavily involved now. Soccer IQ is poor across the US, even in both communities. It's one of the reasons the Mexican men's team has struggled .Pick up games won't solve that. The only really remedy I see is a free academy system that identifies talent at an early age (and treats them as ruthlessly as Europe does).

I appreciate your perspective. I agree that street soccer isn't going to turn our country's development around.

The million dollar question (if we believe that soccer IQ is our biggest issue) is how do we improve our soccer IQ? I don't know that just having our "best" kids in a free academy system is going to work without wholesale changes in coaching and development philosophy. I don't know that parents and kids are going to accept a ruthless system, when culturally we've gotten kinda soft. Soccer is life in other countries, and are we going to sacrifice education and other sports to meet the demands of a ruthless system?

I believe you had mentioned that kids learn by making mistakes and that most coaches discourage and/or criticize players for making mistakes. That is so true. Many may think this is trivial, but there is a huge difference between a coach criticizing a player and saying "you should have done this" vs "what happened there? what other options might have been better?". You have so many options both on and off the ball in soccer, often there isn't a right answer, but some answers are better than others. Kids have to develop that innate decision making skill and coaches can guide them but they can't direct them to the best answers.

So if any organization was dumb enough to ask me for advice, I would say play futsal until U12 (which gives you a lot of touches and forces you to make quick decisions) , don't overcoach players and try to instill a passion in the sport. Maybe follow some of the principles of Tom Byer who helped revolutionize Japanese soccer. (Of course, US Soccer hired him to run a pilot program, but unceremoniously fired him before he could get the program off the ground).

I think were probably being too quick to write-off the women's program and men's is improving, but I still think we need to make major changes, even though it probably won't result in us being top program on a year-to-year basis because the cultural issue is tough to overcome.

 

[Slobodan]

I would say that the phrase "I've never looked at any of our national teams and thought they weren't loaded with great athletes" sums it up for me. I've heard plenty of coaches (all A level) assert the "give me an athlete and I can teach them soccer" mantra and pick kids accordingly. I would posit that the academy coaches in Europe have a mantra of "show me a kid with high IQ and great technical ability and we can make them athletic (i.e. able to run around a lot)". Athleticism can paper over a lot of cracks, but its no substitute for IQ & technique.

"BULLSHIT! Give me some American male athletes and I'll show you how to outrun a ball." - Sincerely, MLS

 

[Slobodan]

Couldn't agree with you more. Speed of play is so much more important than speed of foot and size. Someone that can read the field before they receive the ball, receive the ball in one clean touch and then quickly execute a high percentage decision is so much more effective than a kid that runs a 4.3 40 and weighs 180 that your lofting balls to. I look at it as the difference between athleticism and effectiveness. I have nothing against athleticism, my son made it as far as he did in no small part due to his pure speed and coordination (although below average on size). I also loved watching the pure athleticism of the Nigerian teams of the past.

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but I believe that coaches that think they can teach a player soccer IQ, is a symptom of what I believe is our biggest issue with American soccer and that is "over-coaching". This is a great article on overcoaching...how many coaches have your kids had that would check many of these boxes?

"The Perils of Overcoaching Youth Soccer"
By Dave Simeone
U.S. Soccer National Staff
Many sports are coach-oriented rather than player-oriented, leading to the potential for over-coaching. Baseball, basketball, and football-referred to as set-up sports-all demand and allow a high degree of involvement by the coach during games. (Between pitches (baseball) or plays (football) the time and opportunity exist for diagrams to be drawn or the coach to reposition a player.

But soccer is different. In soccer, the involvement of the coach is secondary to the performance of the players. Soccer is fairly uninterrupted. Players must be allowed to make decisions on their own and learn to receive and process information to solve problems during the game.

Soccer coaches must do most of their game preparation work during the week. By game time on the weekend, it is up to the participants to act, make decisions and play!

Answer these questions honestly to determine if you are over-coaching. If you answer "yes" to very many you are over-coaching.

• Do you find that your voice is strained following a game?

• Is the information that you give your players during half time emotional but non- specific? Does it help them solve problems?

• Do you use catch phrases such as "suck it up, boys" or "no pain, no gain"" in attempting to motivate youngsters?

• Do you find that you are sweating and running just as much during the game as the players?

• Are you pre-game, half-time or post-game speeches similar to the president's state of the union address?

• When addressing the players, do you ramble and cause confusion among the players as to the point you are trying to make?

• Are your remarks and instruction made during the game and to players repetitive and redundant? Is this information general, non-specific jargon and cheerleading and is it altering the player's performance?

• Are you reluctant to allow players to make their own decisions during a game?

• Are you constantly barraging players with instructions during the game?

• Do you coach in absolutes such as "always" or "never"?

• Do you choreograph and arrange players into strict starting positions with instructions such as "never go out of your zone" or "defenders should never cross the midline?"

• Have you instructed players to refrain from passing the ball to certain teammates because their present level of ability is, from your adult perspective, inadequate?

• Do you spend an excessive amount of practice time on throw-ins, kick-offs, corner kicks or penalty kicks?

• Are you utilizing methods of training that do not allow players to acquire and improve technical skills, tactical decision-making, physical stamina and confidence (i.e., dribbling through cones, sending in lines awaiting a turn)?

• Are you attempting to improve the team's level of fitness by minimizing the time the players have contact with the ball? Do you view the game as a contest based only on fitness that leads to a preoccupation with running?

• Are you openly emotional or upset when addressing the players to the point that they stare at you and think, "What are you so disturbed about?"

• Do you have difficulty accepting a realistic approach to winning and losing? Do you believe that winning is synonymous with player development?

• Are you constantly aggravated and apprehensive about coaching?

If you answer "no" to the following questions, you may be over-coaching.

• Do your practices produce nearly the same degree of movement as a soccer game?
• Do you enjoy and have fun coaching youngsters?
• Do the players seem to enjoy playing because of your input and involvement as coach?

The games and practices youngsters take part in should be viewed as vehicles for learning. The same is true of their practices. The acquisition of playing ability is a long-term process that begins at the age of five or six. It is unrealistic to expect youngsters 11 years old or younger to have an adult perspective on the game.

Young players are a product of their experiences. They learn more from their experiences (games, activities, the environment) than they do from the coach. The role of the coach is to organize and set up games and activities that allow the players to learn and enjoy the sport.

Damn... a lot of these apply to my love making.

 

[watfly]

Damn... a lot of these apply to my love making.

I don't think anyone wants to know which ones.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

My limited experience in youth soccer does not support the idea that we are missing out on potentially elite, National Team level players due to pay-to-play. From the club side, if a player looks like they can help a team win, a coach will want her on the team. We were fortunate to play with an excellent coach who trained players to be skillful soccer players. The club regularly had multiple girls on "scholarship." From the player side, those who will develop into elite performers have an innate need to train and play like they need air to breathe. They find ways to play because that is their passion. I do believe we may be missing many potentially good players due to pay-to-play, but the ones who have the potential to be elite get noticed, and clubs come calling.

The most upside in US soccer is available through better training and skill development - especially at young ages. As others have mentioned, tactics revolving around superior athleticism stunt the development of skill on the ball and soccer IQ.

I would like to see a bigger pool of National Team level players split into regions that regularly play each other. See how potential and current National Team players look head-to-head. Even if the team ends up with the same players it has now, there would be a feeling that a spot is earned as opposed to a "lifetime" appointment.

 

[Grace T.]

My limited experience in youth soccer does not support the idea that we are missing out on potentially elite, National Team level players due to pay-to-play. From the club side, if a player looks like they can help a team win, a coach will want her on the team. We were fortunate to play with an excellent coach who trained players to be skillful soccer players. The club regularly had multiple girls on "scholarship." From the player side, those who will develop into elite performers have an innate need to train and play like they need air to breathe. They find ways to play because that is their passion. I do believe we may be missing many potentially good players due to pay-to-play, but the ones who have the potential to be elite get noticed, and clubs come calling.

The most upside in US soccer is available through better training and skill development - especially at young ages. As others have mentioned, tactics revolving around superior athleticism stunt the development of skill on the ball and soccer IQ.

I would like to see a bigger pool of National Team level players split into regions that regularly play each other. See how potential and current National Team players look head-to-head. Even if the team ends up with the same players it has now, there would be a feeling that a spot is earned as opposed to a "lifetime" appointment.

Part of the problem is our ID and many of the scholarships come late. In Europe, academy identification is now as young as 7 (and in Spain they play small sided for much longer, which is why Spanish teams can struggle at Mic when they are younger). In the US, much of the club identification is the more athletic, early blooming player.

 

[Grace T.]

I appreciate your perspective. I agree that street soccer isn't going to turn our country's development around.

The million dollar question (if we believe that soccer IQ is our biggest issue) is how do we improve our soccer IQ? I don't know that just having our "best" kids in a free academy system is going to work without wholesale changes in coaching and development philosophy. I don't know that parents and kids are going to accept a ruthless system, when culturally we've gotten kinda soft. Soccer is life in other countries, and are we going to sacrifice education and other sports to meet the demands of a ruthless system?

I believe you had mentioned that kids learn by making mistakes and that most coaches discourage and/or criticize players for making mistakes. That is so true. Many may think this is trivial, but there is a huge difference between a coach criticizing a player and saying "you should have done this" vs "what happened there? what other options might have been better?". You have so many options both on and off the ball in soccer, often there isn't a right answer, but some answers are better than others. Kids have to develop that innate decision making skill and coaches can guide them but they can't direct them to the best answers.

So if any organization was dumb enough to ask me for advice, I would say play futsal until U12 (which gives you a lot of touches and forces you to make quick decisions) , don't overcoach players and try to instill a passion in the sport. Maybe follow some of the principles of Tom Byer who helped revolutionize Japanese soccer. (Of course, US Soccer hired him to run a pilot program, but unceremoniously fired him before he could get the program off the ground).

I think were probably being too quick to write-off the women's program and men's is improving, but I still think we need to make major changes, even though it probably won't result in us being top program on a year-to-year basis because the cultural issue is tough to overcome.

One of the reasons AYSO fell from the broad scope it had was because the coaches didn't have soccer IQ knowledge so parents went to the clubs where supposedly the coaches with English accents knew more than the coaches (like my first son's AYSO core coach) who were having kids line up in the gridiron 3 point stance. The problem, however, was that many of these English coaches weren't the cream of the crop (as illustrated in the book "Desperate Soccer Moms"). They were mostly washouts in their home countries looking to fill the void here. Our coaching knowledge isn't particularly deep here in the US even for those getting paid (poor instructors beget incomplete students and many of those instructors still have English accents...mine for my E&D had). The forray into self-explored learning that permeates grassroots soccer (much as it does our current schools as a fad) also didn't help. It's enough to teach kids looking to play college. It's not enough at the early years to create pros with strong soccer IQ.

My son was once reamed out in the middle of a league cup game when his first bronze team was facing their first silver level opponent. My son let in a goal and afterwards approached the coach and asked him what he did wrong. The instruction he got was he needed "to do better". That was useful. My son in the recent past had a long 1v1 he got beat on and approached the coach (a Latino coach with a strong knowledge of the game and who actively watches and played the sport) what he could do better. The coach told him he's always falling back to the 6 on his 1 v 1s and shouldn't drop to the goal, instead rushing out from wherever he is, even if it's outside the box. That advice is wrong. Rushing out and sliding feet first is a good way to get a red card (keepers should never slide feet first if in the box and outside it's only for very specific situations where a red card can be avoided). Holding in place is wrong: the striker either just runs around you or chips you if the ball is more in their control than the keeper's. Every knowledgeable goalkeeper coach he's ever taken with (including the local greats) has instructed the proper answer is to fall back to the 6. He did make a mistake, but that wasn't it. His mistake was he was set leaning backwards. Only spotted it with the non club GK looked at the footage later....the coach's advice was wrong.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

In the US, much of the club identification is the more athletic, early blooming player.

This was generally true based on the teams we saw in youth soccer. However, on the team my daughter played on through most of youth soccer, the bias was toward those who were best at "small ball" games - typically, smaller, quicker, more coordinated players. The problem I see is that the players that could benefit the most from the "small ball" games/drills were playing on teams that often played the long ball instead of playing the long game.

My solution is that youth soccer games (until about 10 years old?) consist of two separate game activities that all players participate in. One is a "small ball" game with no goalie to incent training in ball skill work, and the other is a more traditional game with a goalie.

 

[Grace T.]

This was generally true based on the teams we saw in youth soccer. However, on the team my daughter played on through most of youth soccer, the bias was toward those who were best at "small ball" games - typically, smaller, quicker, more coordinated players. The problem I see is that the players that could benefit the most from the "small ball" games/drills were playing on teams that often played the long ball instead of playing the long game.

My solution is that youth soccer games (until about 10 years old?) consist of two separate game activities that all players participate in. One is a "small ball" game with no goalie to incent training in ball skill work, and the other is a more traditional game with a goalie.

Like it. Would help GKs with their feet too, especially now that 6 and 7 year olds are showing up to training. How can we get you on the national board?

 

[watfly]

The coach told him he's always falling back to the 6 on his 1 v 1s and shouldn't drop to the goal, instead rushing out from wherever he is, even if it's outside the box. That advice is wrong. Rushing out and sliding feet first is a good way to get a red card (keepers should never slide feet first if in the box and outside it's only for very specific situations where a red card can be avoided). Holding in place is wrong: the striker either just runs around you or chips you if the ball is more in their control than the keeper's. Every knowledgeable goalkeeper coach he's ever taken with (including the local greats) has instructed the proper answer is to fall back to the 6. He did make a mistake, but that wasn't it. His mistake was he was set leaning backwards. Only spotted it with the non club GK looked at the footage later....the coach's advice was wrong.

I'm going to disagree with you a bit here. While goalkeeping is a little more precise than playing in the field, there are no absolutes in soccer. Like the overcoaching article mentions, coaches need to avoid using terms like "always" and "never". Soccer is the most situational sport with multiple variables you have to assess in a split second. Falling back to the 6 may have been the appropriate decision in your son's circumstance, but never sliding feet first would be taking a very valuable tool out of a keeper's tool box. It's effective, albeit with risk. Personally, I haven't seen it result in as many red cards as you have experienced. These risk/return equations are all things that a soccer player needs to understand to develop their soccer IQ. One of my pet peeve's is seeing a goalie rush out to stop a 1v1 and suddenly stop and backpedal in retreat. That typically doesn't end well as you've released much of the pressure on the attacker and are likely off-balance as you backpedal. Even if you've made the wrong decision to charge the attacker, you're only going to compound the problem by retreating.

 

[espola]

I'm going to disagree with you a bit here. While goalkeeping is a little more precise than playing in the field, there are no absolutes in soccer. Like the overcoaching article mentions, coaches need to avoid using terms like "always" and "never". Soccer is the most situational sport with multiple variables you have to assess in a split second. Falling back to the 6 may have been the appropriate decision in your son's circumstance, but never sliding feet first would be taking a very valuable tool out of a keeper's tool box. It's effective, albeit with risk. Personally, I haven't seen it result in as many red cards as you have experienced. These risk/return equations are all things that a soccer player needs to understand to develop their soccer IQ. One of my pet peeve's is seeing a goalie rush out to stop a 1v1 and suddenly stop and backpedal in retreat. That typically doesn't end well as you've released much of the pressure on the attacker and are likely off-balance as you backpedal. Even if you've made the wrong decision to charge the attacker, you're only going to compound the problem by retreating.

The advice to my son when he played as a keeper was to either go for the ball or stay on the line. Playing halfway was only to the benefit of the attacker.

 

[watfly]

The advice to my son when he played as a keeper was to either go for the ball or stay on the line. Playing halfway was only to the benefit of the attacker.

I couldn't care less about where a keeper stands as long as they are cutting off angles and/or putting enough pressure on the attacker so that they aren't completely in control of their shot decision.

 

[Slobodan]

I don't think anyone wants to know which ones.

Hater.

 

[Grace T.]

I'm going to disagree with you a bit here. While goalkeeping is a little more precise than playing in the field, there are no absolutes in soccer. Like the overcoaching article mentions, coaches need to avoid using terms like "always" and "never". Soccer is the most situational sport with multiple variables you have to assess in a split second. Falling back to the 6 may have been the appropriate decision in your son's circumstance, but never sliding feet first would be taking a very valuable tool out of a keeper's tool box. It's effective, albeit with risk. Personally, I haven't seen it result in as many red cards as you have experienced. These risk/return equations are all things that a soccer player needs to understand to develop their soccer IQ. One of my pet peeve's is seeing a goalie rush out to stop a 1v1 and suddenly stop and backpedal in retreat. That typically doesn't end well as you've released much of the pressure on the attacker and are likely off-balance as you backpedal. Even if you've made the wrong decision to charge the attacker, you're only going to compound the problem by retreating.

Not much to disagree with here, only on the margins. As usual a thoughtful reply:
-You don't go feet first in the box because it is much more effective to block, starfish, slide/smother, do the crucifix, do the Crazy Ivan, or do a sliding davis than feet first. There's just so many more effective techniques (and the one that's the right answer more than 1/3 of the time is actually the hold) than sliding with your feet that it is almost never the best answer and something the youngers and untrained really tend to do. Sliding feet first is reserved 100% for out of the box and then, as you say, subject to the risk/return equation (and the proper way to execute it anyways is more like a swinging gate than a studs up feet forward slide which even if it makes contact with the ball is technically a red card offense). I agree 100% on once you make a decision, whether in goal or on the field, you have to go with it, "usually".
-There are some absolutes in soccer. You should "always" be aware of your surroundings and cognizant of the potential play making passes. You should "always" be ready to receive the ball on offense, regardless of your position on the field. You should "always" if defending switch to a defensive mode if the team has lost the ball. You should "never" lose sight of your positional reference on the field. You should "never" lose sight of the potential pass opportunities around you. You should "never" jump on a throw in and give it away due to a technical foul. I agree one problem is that many "usually" are interpreted to always such as never toe poke the ball on a shot.

 

[Grace T.]

I couldn't care less about where a keeper stands as long as they are cutting off angles and/or putting enough pressure on the attacker so that they aren't completely in control of their shot decision.

If you are in no man's land (get caught neither close enough to pressure, nor far away enough to cut off with some reaction time), you do neither. "Usually" that's a position between the PK and the 6 also know as "the corridor of death" on crosses, or any time the player (keeper or otherwise) is moving when a shot is being taken and there is more than 5-7 feet distance from the ball.

 

[NorCalDad]

While "pay-to-play" is an issue, it's just a subset of the bigger issue which is the economic engine that drives competitive youth soccer. It is a business, nothing more, nothing less. We all fall for it hook line and sinker -- just like we fall for other things our kids are involved with. There are good coaches with good intentions for sure, but they're playing catchup all the time and have to resist the demands of the economic engine. Now, if kids were playing pickup soccer like they do with basketball, these good coaches wouldn't have to be playing catchup all the time. Kids who play pickup build a love of the sport and are especially gifted soccer IQ wise. As Cruyff said "Footballers from the street are more important than trained coaches". I personally think US Soccer should invest in creating a program that helps build futsal courts around the country with easy access. Even turfed ones would do.

 

[espola]

What's the point of VAR if they are not going to call that?

 

[Grace T.]

While "pay-to-play" is an issue, it's just a subset of the bigger issue which is the economic engine that drives competitive youth soccer. It is a business, nothing more, nothing less. We all fall for it hook line and sinker -- just like we fall for other things our kids are involved with. There are good coaches with good intentions for sure, but they're playing catchup all the time and have to resist the demands of the economic engine. Now, if kids were playing pickup soccer like they do with basketball, these good coaches wouldn't have to be playing catchup all the time. Kids who play pickup build a love of the sport and are especially gifted soccer IQ wise. As Cruyff said "Footballers from the street are more important than trained coaches". I personally think US Soccer should invest in creating a program that helps build futsal courts around the country with easy access. Even turfed ones would do.

While I agree futsal is 100% an essential part of the equation kids are never going to pick it up that way if that’s all they get. The learning needs to be directed. Otherwise we’d have a bunch of Latino teams blowing the academies out of the water because those kids play at recess.

to correct the mistakes someone has to impart the knowledge. That’s either the coaches (see complaints above about winner take all), the parents (see complaints above about low parent soccer iq…if there was high iq ayso would be all we need) or The culture (most kids with their short attention spans and busy schedules are not sitting there watching epl games….hell my kid can’t even get a friend to go on a free ticket to lafc league cup tomorrow). Otherwise kids just will repeat their mistakes because kids are dumb and don’t know any better and can’t even reason well.The reason Americans find soccer frustrating is because it’s not a pure team sport. It’s chess with athletics thrown in.

 

[Zoro]

So WC1 at 18 and WC2 at 22 and you are done! Makes no sense!!!

Makes total sense. Why start at 18? Start when you are peak and likely after college as in the USA with TITLE IX use college as training and school.
Graduate college ~22 play till ~ 28 - get a life. This is a handicap league just like the para league. Nobody cares or watches. This is not a job.
The Para athletes are not claiming they need more pay. The biggest accomplishment of the women's team was getting equal pay for 10% of the eyeballs. It was not winning soccer games.

 

[pewpew]

Well everything is relative and typically based on your personal life experiences. Maybe Rapinoe should spend some time in some objectively oppressive countries. That seems to have made an impact on Brittany Griner.

It only made an impact on BG because she got caught for drug possession in Russia. She has shown nothing but complete disdain for this country.
Once she got caught and was potentially facing years behind bars she was weeping and all the SJWs were onboard to free her as if she were some innocent victim of circumstance. Then we traded her for a known Russian arms dealer.."The Merchant of Death." That's kind of like putting the fox back in the hen house. If she hadn't gone thru all that she'd still be giving the middle finger to the USA while enjoying the freedom this country provides, and making money in the process.
Another one I wouldn't piss on if she were on fire.