Many of the answers to this question are obvious including:
long legacy of euro club systems, better entrenchment of soccer skills in us womens collegiate levels, etc..
but it is worth noticing, and discussing i think, that the collegiate system has succeeded SPECTACULARLY on the women's side of the sport, and it has FAILED MISERABLY in the men's sport. Why such an extreme?
I think this fact is worth some time and meditation.
The collegiate sport hasn't failed the men. It is only one outlet for them to participate.
And for that matter, the collegiate system hasn't "worked" for the women. But it is one of the few places for women to play for development. All of those girls also played in travel/youth development leagues in addition to college.
What's more important is that the women have a more cohesive team that's well-constructed. For years, the men built up their reputation and while they weren't as creative as traditional powerhouses, they had a lot of clinical skills. The USMNT doesn't lack talent - it lacks cohesiveness and proper roster construction. Under Bradley, they had a well-built team. Thank the US Soccer Association and Klinsmann for trashing that and trying to take the team in a European direction without a European foundation at lower levels to build from.
I don't think this is accurate. I am not gonna dig into the numbers right now but the game is growing rapidly in the us, high participation rates, growing in HS's, and very popular among women. We produce 10x the number of female players England is producing.
The collegiate sport hasn't failed the men. It is only one outlet for them to participate.
And for that matter, the collegiate system hasn't "worked" for the women. But it is one of the few places for women to play for development. All of those girls also played in travel/youth development leagues in addition to college.
What's more important is that the women have a more cohesive team that's well-constructed. For years, the men built up their reputation and while they weren't as creative as traditional powerhouses, they had a lot of clinical skills. The USMNT doesn't lack talent - it lacks cohesiveness and proper roster construction. Under Bradley, they had a well-built team. Thank the US Soccer Association and Klinsmann for trashing that and trying to take the team in a European direction without a European foundation at lower levels to build from.
hmm that's interesting. I always favored the Klinsmann approach to be honest because Europe is where the best football is played. I honestly never considered our talent pool was good enough on the men's side. I am not sure I agree with you but that is an interestging theory, that dedication to the american style and brand of the game is missing and if we redouble to our american approach we would have better results.
On the men's side the best athletes gravitate towards football, basketball, and baseball. So soccer gets the scraps.
On top of it, people with money tend to gravitate towards the top of the game, because soccer camps are expensive as hell.
So your funnel goes from getting the scraps of the best athletes, to getting the scraps that are rich enough to participate in these expensive camps.
You look at Brazil, they have the best players they can find period. You don't have to pay for camps, everyone plays the game, and they scout the streets for the best players.
The USSF knows this. I used to work for them, and they bitched about it all the time.
But the problem is his methods don't mesh with the way we develop players in the US. He didn't want the top collegiate players or MLS players - he wanted International ones. And that led to a disjointed roster construction. and that doesn't even touch upon his terrible management of players in using them out of position and in roles they had little to no experience in.
He tried to coach and build a team as if he were in a country where soccer development is solidified. What he ended up doing is creating a rag-tag roster of mismatches. Some US system players. Some foreign nationals. And he never knew how to get them to work together unified.
Women's soccer doesn't have that same industry. There isn't the same financial incentive or motivation to find young women while they are in middle school and high school and send them to full-time academies to make them into the best professionals (note: this does occur in sports like tennis).
However, there is an incentive for colleges to offer soccer development (boosts school appeal, Title IX). It's the best option for US women to improve their soccer skills.
The top thing to keep in mind is the development of US players vis a vis the rest of the world.
So while the US women are relying on a college system, it's still a more comprehensive opportunity than what the women are getting in most of the other soccer countries (and we have a significant population advantage).
Plus, there aren't many lucrative professional women's sports that young soccer phenoms are being pulled away from to focus on going pro in another sport.
Quote:
your premise is incorrect to begin with.
The collegiate sport hasn't failed the men. It is only one outlet for them to participate.
And for that matter, the collegiate system hasn't "worked" for the women. But it is one of the few places for women to play for development. All of those girls also played in travel/youth development leagues in addition to college.
What's more important is that the women have a more cohesive team that's well-constructed. For years, the men built up their reputation and while they weren't as creative as traditional powerhouses, they had a lot of clinical skills. The USMNT doesn't lack talent - it lacks cohesiveness and proper roster construction. Under Bradley, they had a well-built team. Thank the US Soccer Association and Klinsmann for trashing that and trying to take the team in a European direction without a European foundation at lower levels to build from.
hmm that's interesting. I always favored the Klinsmann approach to be honest because Europe is where the best football is played. I honestly never considered our talent pool was good enough on the men's side. I am not sure I agree with you but that is an interestging theory, that dedication to the american style and brand of the game is missing and if we redouble to our american approach we would have better results.
I think the main point about Klinsmann is that he had an idea of the national team should be run but we didn't have the structure at the lower levels for development. If the men's team is going to make strides, it needs to start at youth level and then the result won't be seen for 10+ years as those first experiencing the transition at the youth level grow through the national team.
For men, the college system results in significantly fewer resources being directed towards soccer than rest of the world.
For the women, the USA is a huge country with tons of disposable income that has put more into soccer than the rest of the world. That makes you the best team in the world.
For the men, we are still a huge country with tons of disposable income, but we put less into soccer (at least on a percentage basis) than almost any other country in the world. That results in a team that's about 25-30 in the world (provided we are not being poisoned by a clown like kilnsmann)
This. People in the US don't give two shits about soccer. It doesn't even have a fraction of the fans the NHL has. We continue to hear how soccer is growing in popularity, but we've been hearing this same thing for decades and it's no truer now than it was when I played in the 80s.
Until there's a system in place to better utilize our talent I would get our best kids out of the US.
Not coming from a wise ass point of view, legit question; what's the logic in having our best kids play in the MLS? I don't buy the line of thinking that the MLS needs to become a top league for soccer to really catch on here in the USA. We live in an interconnected world more than ever. I see tons of little kids around NY in EPL, La Liga jerseys. etc. and that's just fine.
On the men's side the best athletes gravitate towards football, basketball, and baseball. So soccer gets the scraps.
On top of it, people with money tend to gravitate towards the top of the game, because soccer camps are expensive as hell.
So your funnel goes from getting the scraps of the best athletes, to getting the scraps that are rich enough to participate in these expensive camps.
You look at Brazil, they have the best players they can find period. You don't have to pay for camps, everyone plays the game, and they scout the streets for the best players.
The USSF knows this. I used to work for them, and they bitched about it all the time.
I've never been sold on the theory that "our best athletes play other sports". I believe I have seen mathematical modeling that disputes the idea, the point being that the theory sounds good in the abstract but in reality great soccer stars look nothing like basketball and football players and have totally different skill sets. We are just doing a bad job at finding those athletes maybe. In a country of 350 mil people we should be able to find 50 great soccer players who arent committed to other sports.. and consider the best intl soccer players, do they look like football or baseball players to you?
Quote:
Not many in the US care about soccer. World Cups are fun but that's about it.
This. People in the US don't give two shits about soccer. It doesn't even have a fraction of the fans the NHL has. We continue to hear how soccer is growing in popularity, but we've been hearing this same thing for decades and it's no truer now than it was when I played in the 80s.
many tournaments already get better ratings than the nhl stanley cup and the nba playoffs. so somebody cares.
For men, the college system results in significantly fewer resources being directed towards soccer than rest of the world.
For the women, the USA is a huge country with tons of disposable income that has put more into soccer than the rest of the world. That makes you the best team in the world.
For the men, we are still a huge country with tons of disposable income, but we put less into soccer (at least on a percentage basis) than almost any other country in the world. That results in a team that's about 25-30 in the world (provided we are not being poisoned by a clown like kilnsmann)
maybe.. is it true that the mathematical modeling suggests we shouldn 't be able to compete with countries a tenth or a fifth of our size. Sounds plausible in theory but not sure what you are saying would hold up under mathematical analysis.
Quote:
USA. So they get all the best athletes to play women's soccer.
On the men's side the best athletes gravitate towards football, basketball, and baseball. So soccer gets the scraps.
On top of it, people with money tend to gravitate towards the top of the game, because soccer camps are expensive as hell.
So your funnel goes from getting the scraps of the best athletes, to getting the scraps that are rich enough to participate in these expensive camps.
You look at Brazil, they have the best players they can find period. You don't have to pay for camps, everyone plays the game, and they scout the streets for the best players.
The USSF knows this. I used to work for them, and they bitched about it all the time.
I've never been sold on the theory that "our best athletes play other sports". I believe I have seen mathematical modeling that disputes the idea, the point being that the theory sounds good in the abstract but in reality great soccer stars look nothing like basketball and football players and have totally different skill sets. We are just doing a bad job at finding those athletes maybe. In a country of 350 mil people we should be able to find 50 great soccer players who arent committed to other sports.. and consider the best intl soccer players, do they look like football or baseball players to you?
Odell was invited to try out for the US national team when he was a teenager. It's easy to see how his athleticism would absolutely translate to playing soccer at a high level.
Now I can't tell you how the height and weight matter in soccer, but there they are.
The college system for men doesn't work in the U.S. cause players are usually done developing by 20. Players around the world are signed when they are like in their early teens and develop on reserve teams for big clubs. In soccer pros develop pros and their is no college system. Messi was 6 and already playing for Argentina youth teams and scouted by bug clubs like River Plate. By 13 he was off to Barcelona.
MLS teams now have academies. In the U.S. we had the pay to play system where parents would pay academies to teach their sons but no real players come out of them. They are just money scams. The MLS academies are fully funded and soley to develop pro players. They already produced a number of young players that are now starting in the league and drawing attention around the world. Alphonso Davies came out of the Vancouver Whitecaps academy and was sold to Bayern Munich for $22 million.
In soccer pros have to develop pros. Not colleges. If MLS doesn't become a world class league then we will always hit a ceiling with soccer and the fanbase will always be segmented. We need a top domestic league that is as good as any in Europe otherwise forget getting the Lebrons, Kobes, Mike Trouts, Aaron Judges, Saquon Barkleys, etc ever playing soccer. We need Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith to be talking about MLS the way they do NBA, NFL, etc.
The NWSL also has to get its act together cause pros developing pros is going to happen with the women too. The NWSL has been a disaster economically and poorly run. The NWSL is the best women's league in the world but it has to stay like that and get even bigger.
We have to shift the paradigm away from Europe. It is happening anyway in the next 20 years. Eventually China and the U.S. will be major players in world soccer simply due to economics.
you are probably right but there does seem to be a new effort to build the national team from a high pct out of the domestic league. But our two most promising players are from the german league. I understand your point that Klinsmann put together a motley crew that he didnt know how to coach (and even in germany the coaching part was not his forte and he was fired after assembling the program). But there should be a role and encouragement for players born in the US and playing in the best leagues. I think.
This. People in the US don't give two shits about soccer. It doesn't even have a fraction of the fans the NHL has. We continue to hear how soccer is growing in popularity, but we've been hearing this same thing for decades and it's no truer now than it was when I played in the 80s.
Surprised you feel this way. Maybe living in NYC has given me a warped perspective, but the popularity of European leagues seems to be rising exponentially from 20 years ago. NBC now plays most the EPL games each weekend, Espn+ picked up Serie A. The average sports bars are playing EPL and CL leagues and getting big crowds for the games.
Maybe it's all a matter of perspective but the fact that major networks are willing to shill out big money to air these european leagues seems proof that the interest is here in this country, no?
Personally I think I played like 1 to 2 years of soccer at a very early age, and then started playing football when I could and never looked back.
It wouldn't surprise me if most kids were the same.
I just don't see how this is even debatable. If every athlete in America wanted to be a soccer player, we would have one of the best teams in the world.
The college system for men doesn't work in the U.S. cause players are usually done developing by 20. Players around the world are signed when they are like in their early teens and develop on reserve teams for big clubs. In soccer pros develop pros and their is no college system. Messi was 6 and already playing for Argentina youth teams and scouted by bug clubs like River Plate. By 13 he was off to Barcelona.
MLS teams now have academies. In the U.S. we had the pay to play system where parents would pay academies to teach their sons but no real players come out of them. They are just money scams. The MLS academies are fully funded and soley to develop pro players. They already produced a number of young players that are now starting in the league and drawing attention around the world. Alphonso Davies came out of the Vancouver Whitecaps academy and was sold to Bayern Munich for $22 million.
In soccer pros have to develop pros. Not colleges. If MLS doesn't become a world class league then we will always hit a ceiling with soccer and the fanbase will always be segmented. We need a top domestic league that is as good as any in Europe otherwise forget getting the Lebrons, Kobes, Mike Trouts, Aaron Judges, Saquon Barkleys, etc ever playing soccer. We need Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith to be talking about MLS the way they do NBA, NFL, etc.
The NWSL also has to get its act together cause pros developing pros is going to happen with the women too. The NWSL has been a disaster economically and poorly run. The NWSL is the best women's league in the world but it has to stay like that and get even bigger.
We have to shift the paradigm away from Europe. It is happening anyway in the next 20 years. Eventually China and the U.S. will be major players in world soccer simply due to economics.
i have seen mathematical modeling that says China, US, Germany and Turkey will be soccer super powers in the future.
I just don't see how this is even debatable. If every athlete in America wanted to be a soccer player, we would have one of the best teams in the world.
This is what I was trying to say and what the USSF thinks as well.
Pro women's soccer in the US is basically intended as practice for the national team, it's underwritten by US soccer, and national team members salaries are covered.
If you're a very good male American soccer player at 18-20, you have the choice of club soccer in Europe, making good money, in addition to playing on the national team.
Quote:
In comment 14494340 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
USA. So they get all the best athletes to play women's soccer.
On the men's side the best athletes gravitate towards football, basketball, and baseball. So soccer gets the scraps.
On top of it, people with money tend to gravitate towards the top of the game, because soccer camps are expensive as hell.
So your funnel goes from getting the scraps of the best athletes, to getting the scraps that are rich enough to participate in these expensive camps.
You look at Brazil, they have the best players they can find period. You don't have to pay for camps, everyone plays the game, and they scout the streets for the best players.
The USSF knows this. I used to work for them, and they bitched about it all the time.
I've never been sold on the theory that "our best athletes play other sports". I believe I have seen mathematical modeling that disputes the idea, the point being that the theory sounds good in the abstract but in reality great soccer stars look nothing like basketball and football players and have totally different skill sets. We are just doing a bad job at finding those athletes maybe. In a country of 350 mil people we should be able to find 50 great soccer players who arent committed to other sports.. and consider the best intl soccer players, do they look like football or baseball players to you?
Odell was invited to try out for the US national team when he was a teenager. It's easy to see how his athleticism would absolutely translate to playing soccer at a high level.
This.
The CBs, WRs, RBs in football, PGs in basketball, OFers in baseball to a lesser extent.... take the best and they blow away our best soccer players athletically.. it's not even close.
I'm surprised anyone debates this argument.
Odell Beckham is just the latest example.
Until there's a system in place to better utilize our talent I would get our best kids out of the US.
Not coming from a wise ass point of view, legit question; what's the logic in having our best kids play in the MLS? I don't buy the line of thinking that the MLS needs to become a top league for soccer to really catch on here in the USA. We live in an interconnected world more than ever. I see tons of little kids around NY in EPL, La Liga jerseys. etc. and that's just fine.
You can forget about soccer ever being big here with your reasoning. If MLS is not a top league forget it. Those kids barely follow the EPL or La Liga. Wearing jerseys from some club half way around the world they have no connection to means NOTHING. Those kids quickly forget about soccer once they hit a certain age and start loving the NBA, NFL, ect. They see Lebron. They see the LOS ANGELES Lakers, NEW ENGLAND Patriots, NEW YORK Yankees. American or Canadian teams that are part of U.S. culture. European clubs will never be part of U.S. sporting culture.
If you make those kids NYCFC fans and dream of growing up and playing for them, like kids do the Yankees, then you will attract the star athletes. Expecting Europe to do it for you is not going to work.
MLS HAS to become one of the biggest leagues in the world with the best Americans playing here and being the next Lebrons, KDs, Bradys, etc. It can't happen in Europe.
Let me ask you something. If the world is interconnected why don't you hear much about the EPL, La Liga, ect in the U.S. sports media and sports radio? Why is there almost no soccer coverage? Why is there almost no soccer highlights on ESPN? Have you ever heard a ESPN show talk Liverpool vs. Arsenal?? No. Because Americans follow American leagues. Soccer can't be popular here without a top flight domestic league. It won't happen.
Quote:
think there is any more or any less encouragement to keep players in the MLS vs. International leagues. For the most part, players where go where they have the best opportunities.
you are probably right but there does seem to be a new effort to build the national team from a high pct out of the domestic league. But our two most promising players are from the german league. I understand your point that Klinsmann put together a motley crew that he didnt know how to coach (and even in germany the coaching part was not his forte and he was fired after assembling the program). But there should be a role and encouragement for players born in the US and playing in the best leagues. I think.
I think you are missing the point. MLS teams are establishing academies. Players are forgoing college. There is now a system that doesn't rely on college anymore. MLS teams are starting 16 year olds that were developed by their academies that are playing against 30 year old men rather than other 16 year olds like they do in basketball, football, or baseball. This isn't college guys playing against other 22 year olds.
This has nothing to do with the U.S. vs. Europe. We are just using their model now and imagine where will be 20 years from now because of our economic system. Eventually China and the U.S. are going to be right there in Europe.
If you look at the roster for the U-20 Men's world cup, NONE of the 21 play college soccer. All play professionally or are in professional academies. Contrast that with the US roster for last year's U-20 Women's World Cup and 20 of the 25 play in college. That's a stark talent gap for men's college soccer.
Here are the "college age" Americans those who are most often touted as the top players and the future of the USMNT. The first three are really obvious and already fixtures on the full USMNT:
Christian Pulisic, 20, signed at 16 by Borussia Dortmund
Weston McKennie, 20, signed at 17 by Schalke
Tyler Adams, 20, signed with RB Leipzig this past January
Sergino Dest, 18, played in Ajax youth academy since 2012 (Dutch Father)
Paxton Pomykal, 19, played in FC Dallas' youth academy, plays with FC Dallas
Chris Richards, 18, signed with Bayern Munich this past January
Timothy Weah, 19, signed at 17 by Paris Saint-Germain
Josh Sargent, 18, signed with Werder Bremen on his 18th birthday
I also think that because the women's game is still developing in many countries so the scouting network isn't well developed. I think many talented girls just aren't found until they're older. Whereas with the boys, European clubs have a vast network of scouts and contacts available to identify talented boys at a very young age.
Quote:
In comment 14494366 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14494340 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
USA. So they get all the best athletes to play women's soccer.
On the men's side the best athletes gravitate towards football, basketball, and baseball. So soccer gets the scraps.
On top of it, people with money tend to gravitate towards the top of the game, because soccer camps are expensive as hell.
So your funnel goes from getting the scraps of the best athletes, to getting the scraps that are rich enough to participate in these expensive camps.
You look at Brazil, they have the best players they can find period. You don't have to pay for camps, everyone plays the game, and they scout the streets for the best players.
The USSF knows this. I used to work for them, and they bitched about it all the time.
I've never been sold on the theory that "our best athletes play other sports". I believe I have seen mathematical modeling that disputes the idea, the point being that the theory sounds good in the abstract but in reality great soccer stars look nothing like basketball and football players and have totally different skill sets. We are just doing a bad job at finding those athletes maybe. In a country of 350 mil people we should be able to find 50 great soccer players who arent committed to other sports.. and consider the best intl soccer players, do they look like football or baseball players to you?
Odell was invited to try out for the US national team when he was a teenager. It's easy to see how his athleticism would absolutely translate to playing soccer at a high level.
This.
The CBs, WRs, RBs in football, PGs in basketball, OFers in baseball to a lesser extent.... take the best and they blow away our best soccer players athletically.. it's not even close.
I'm surprised anyone debates this argument.
Odell Beckham is just the latest example.
And we think Odell Beckham would be a soccer superstar because.... Why exactly? He does not have the same athletic gifts as the best intl soccer players. It's rank speculation. Messi is not a super fast quick twitch guy with sticky hands.
The US women dominate because there are maybe less than 10 really good international women's teams and they are playing catch-up to the US.
The men are playing against players that start playing as soon as they can walk. Other countries develop players regardless of their parents' financial situation.
It's like saying that a Class A baseball team that wins the championship is better than the Cleveland Indians. The competition is not the same.
I just don't see how this is even debatable. If every athlete in America wanted to be a soccer player, we would have one of the best teams in the world.
Occasionally you see articles like "what if LeBron or Kobe played soccer" and it just makes you shake your head.
But I agree with your take. It's the incredible athletes (both in terms of speed/agility and motor skills) who are undersized to likely become or thrive as pros, but still go down the basketball path because they love it, are successful at younger ages, and have the dream of making the NBA or playing somewhere.
Take someone like Kyle Guy. He was the Most Outstanding Player of the Final Four for Virginia. He ended up getting drafted in the late second round, and just signed a 2-way contract with the Kings. So he is going to make money as a pro basketball player but who knows if he will last in the NBA. Many people thought he wouldn't get drafted at all because he was undersized for a shooting guard. He's a shade under 6'1, 168 pounds. He has ridiculous endurance, is very athletic, and is an absolutely masterful shooter. But the concern was that he just wasn't athletic and explosive enough to overcome his lack of height for being a pure shooter.
But I have no doubt that if grew up obsessing over soccer instead of basketball, that he would have ended up being a fantastic soccer player. Pro? Who knows? Some people just have tremendous coordination and motor skills-- my guess is that whatever innate neural traits he has that enables him to excel as shooter would have translated to fantastic motor skills with his feet if his focus was soccer.
I've always thought that if Allen Iverson grew up in a soccer country, he would be one of the greatest soccer players in the world. He just had that innate athletic genius which enabled him to be a phenomenal high school quarterback and safety in an NFL hotbed in ability to his NBA success.
The way that Kyrie Irving dribbles a basketball and finishes at the rim is that of someone who is a body control, coordination, timing genius. I can't imagine he wouldn't have been a Ronaldinho like dribbler if he grew up only touching the ball with his feet and not his hands.
On the men's side the best athletes gravitate towards football, basketball, and baseball. So soccer gets the scraps.
On top of it, people with money tend to gravitate towards the top of the game, because soccer camps are expensive as hell.
So your funnel goes from getting the scraps of the best athletes, to getting the scraps that are rich enough to participate in these expensive camps.
You look at Brazil, they have the best players they can find period. You don't have to pay for camps, everyone plays the game, and they scout the streets for the best players.
The USSF knows this. I used to work for them, and they bitched about it all the time.
Soccer and basketball are co-#1 sports for high school female athletes
It's not everyone, but there is a good population of Soccer Snobs out there.
Quote:
In comment 14494373 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
In comment 14494366 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14494340 BigBlueDownTheShore said:
Quote:
USA. So they get all the best athletes to play women's soccer.
On the men's side the best athletes gravitate towards football, basketball, and baseball. So soccer gets the scraps.
On top of it, people with money tend to gravitate towards the top of the game, because soccer camps are expensive as hell.
So your funnel goes from getting the scraps of the best athletes, to getting the scraps that are rich enough to participate in these expensive camps.
You look at Brazil, they have the best players they can find period. You don't have to pay for camps, everyone plays the game, and they scout the streets for the best players.
The USSF knows this. I used to work for them, and they bitched about it all the time.
I've never been sold on the theory that "our best athletes play other sports". I believe I have seen mathematical modeling that disputes the idea, the point being that the theory sounds good in the abstract but in reality great soccer stars look nothing like basketball and football players and have totally different skill sets. We are just doing a bad job at finding those athletes maybe. In a country of 350 mil people we should be able to find 50 great soccer players who arent committed to other sports.. and consider the best intl soccer players, do they look like football or baseball players to you?
Odell was invited to try out for the US national team when he was a teenager. It's easy to see how his athleticism would absolutely translate to playing soccer at a high level.
This.
The CBs, WRs, RBs in football, PGs in basketball, OFers in baseball to a lesser extent.... take the best and they blow away our best soccer players athletically.. it's not even close.
I'm surprised anyone debates this argument.
Odell Beckham is just the latest example.
And we think Odell Beckham would be a soccer superstar because.... Why exactly? He does not have the same athletic gifts as the best intl soccer players. It's rank speculation. Messi is not a super fast quick twitch guy with sticky hands.
he has exceptional footwork, change of direction, pace and body control. He's precisely the kind of athlete that could be an exceptional soccer player if he could develop the rest of the skills. Not all soccer players look like Messi, either. Some look like Ronaldo, Kane, Bale, Lukaku, etc. There's an incredible amount of skill necessary of course and there's no guarantee that he could have developed it. But you're not finding an athlete better than Odell in any soccer league in the world. He'd be the best athlete on the US mens team, too, probably. US Soccer has to compete for athletes because soccer is less popular and in the rest of the world this is not true.
The fact that athletes want to play other sports is A factor, but not THE factor. The reality is that we're just behind and still catching up on the Mens side.
Conversely, at smaller rural areas in the US schools don't have the population to field both football and soccer teams since they play during the same season. They will always have a football team first.
It wouldn't surprise me if most kids were the same.////
The correct "athletes" argument
It's about every town in America having the 5'8" receiver playing varsity football, the quick point guard who can't shoot, etc etc etc. Its the hundreds of sub 4.5 40 guys who play db and wr in college. It's the many thousands of very athletic guys who either never touch a soccer ball or barely focus on soccer.
I just don't see how this is even debatable. [quote]This was once the case, but over the past five years or so, there has been a tremendous migration to soccer from football at US high school level. You see it all the time but the reverse of what Jerry is saying: You see the 6'1" 195 - 210 pound stellar athletes playing forward or center back, along with the smaller, more wiry athletes who might have been WRs.
Part of it is the growing appeal and awareness of soccer.
Part of it is awareness of incidence of head trauma in (American) football; this has sent many athletes to the 'relative' safety of soccer. Whatever the reason, the incidence of head trauma injuries for women in soccer is higher than for men.
The problem for US men's soccer on world stage is that this change in demographics is not yet manifesting itself all the way through to USMNT. Our U-17, U-20 and U-23 men's teams have been reasonably competitive, but that success is not flowing up as it should. USSF remains part of the problem.
Just take a look at the crowd at Soldier Field last night. 80% or more of the fans were for Mexico. Do you think something like that would happen in most other countries?
It wouldn't surprise me if most kids were the same.////
The correct "athletes" argument
It's about every town in America having the 5'8" receiver playing varsity football, the quick point guard who can't shoot, etc etc etc. Its the hundreds of sub 4.5 40 guys who play db and wr in college. It's the many thousands of very athletic guys who either never touch a soccer ball or barely focus on soccer.
I just don't see how this is even debatable.
Part of it is the growing appeal and awareness of soccer.
Part of it is awareness of incidence of head trauma in (American) football; this has sent many athletes to the 'relative' safety of soccer. Whatever the reason, the incidence of head trauma injuries for women in soccer is higher than for men.
The problem for US men's soccer on world stage is that this change in demographics is not yet manifesting itself all the way through to USMNT. Our U-17, U-20 and U-23 men's teams have been reasonably competitive, but that success is not flowing up as it should. USSF remains part of the problem.
False. Don't let your opinion cloud the facts.
Some additional throw in thoughts:
CHP is right about the longer term future of football in the USA. Many a family whose grandfathers and fathers played Football and College in the hotbed of football ( Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana) wont let their kids play given the brain trauma potential and have re directed them to baseball or mostly, lacrosse.
Several of the fastest developing women on the USWNT went to play in European clubs to gain experience ( including what they thought was the faster track than college ( Mal Pugh, Lindsey Horan)) like Heath, Lloyd, Morgan, Press, Dunn. All came back more technically sound ( except perhaps LLoyd) and more well rounded players.
So the paths to the top for female players are expanding
One big challenge for US womens soccer is to get across how inexpensive soccer is at levels below and in high school. Its a ball and a net and a field. Low upkeep and low on equipment compared to many other sports. Getting urban and some southern parts of the country to engage is a growth opportunity
...
This might be a lonely take, and I am not arguing the benefits of Title IX or that college soccer is beneficial per se, but I would argue that women's college soccer is a relatively minor part of development. I see it more as a polishing or finishing school. Like DI versus DII/DIII in football, it's selecting either athletes or players who are already highly successful at soccer. Girls'/womens' youth programs bear the brunt of development and are very good at it. Highly competitive soccer is available from a very early age (depending on your definition of "highly competitive" you can go down to U10).
Same is true for boys but there are fewer alternative sports that draw girls away when they get to HS. For our town, I think Lacrosse is the biggest competitor for athletes. Some girls play soccer and basketball but there are fewer spots for basketball players.
At the youth level there are regional and even national leagues that lead to year-round play at high competition (for their age). There can be some very good (and some not so good) coaching. There are parallel "youth" (U18, U20, etc) national teams.
Point being that the colleges (the ones seeding the USWNT) have already drawn from a pool of highly skilled, athletic elite women who have already been through a rigorous developmental process and then they add on.
The problem I have with the NCAA men's game is the skill level isn't there. When I watch a NCAA Division I game I see very fast athletes who have average to below average ball skills. I don't see great soccer players.
The lack of that skill development is what keeps the U.S. from moving forward on soccer, and the gap with the rest of the world begins at around age 16. I don't have much faith that the USSF will ever figure out how to properly develop talent. I'd love to be proven wrong.
In 2009 USA Hockey faced a stark realization that US hockey players had fallen behind a lot of the rest of the hockey playing world (which is drastically smaller than the soccer playing world).
They did what you should do, they studied the teams who excel. they went to Finland, a country smaller than the State of Massachusetts and watched what they did since Finland had more players drafted that year than the entire US in the first few rounds. They watched the Swedes, they watched the Canadians (who allowed much less access than the Fins and Swedes).
And they saw a very different approach. more cross-training, more skill development vs strategy, more focus on fundamentals and endurance and conditioning than breakouts or power play schemes. When you look back a lot of common sense stuff.
With that was born the ADM (American Development Model) for USA Hockey. As a coach I love it, wish it was around when I was kid. Maybe soccer already uses it or something like it. It's a standard that if we're affiliated with USA Hockey we are STRONGLY encouraged to follow.
I won't bore anyone further with the details, but this June, 10 years after the ADM model was introduced in the US the USNDTP (US National Development Team Program) had 17 players drafted - every single eligible player). 11 first round picks - setting a record. In all 59 Americans were drafted, also a record.
The US has won medals at every juniors tournament I believe since 2009 and has the most medals in U18 and U20 tournaments since that time for any country.
success at the men's level has been fleeting, but the NHL ruined that by not allowing NHL Players to join the Olympics so we'll never know until they reverse that.
but USA Soccer can do the same thing I believe if they haven't started already.
But (at least in NE) lax is a spring sport, soccer fall, so talented athletes can play both (men as well as women), but their respective Club teams do enforce off-season tournaments, i.e., spring and summer, travel required, and there the athletes have to choose one or the other in which to focus their development. I believe soccer continues to lead comfortably in that regard, but shrinking.
The problem I have with the NCAA men's game is the skill level isn't there. When I watch a NCAA Division I game I see very fast athletes who have average to below average ball skills. I don't see great soccer players.
The lack of that skill development is what keeps the U.S. from moving forward on soccer, and the gap with the rest of the world begins at around age 16. I don't have much faith that the USSF will ever figure out how to properly develop talent. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Completely agree. We unquestionably have a huge supply of great athletes here. But on the men's side, the teaching of the technical game is just not like the rest of the world. To me, we teach a very mechanical/text book game, but there is a huge gap with creativity and improvisation.
On the men's side the best athletes gravitate towards football, basketball, and baseball. So soccer gets the scraps.
On top of it, people with money tend to gravitate towards the top of the game, because soccer camps are expensive as hell.
So your funnel goes from getting the scraps of the best athletes, to getting the scraps that are rich enough to participate in these expensive camps.
You look at Brazil, they have the best players they can find period. You don't have to pay for camps, everyone plays the game, and they scout the streets for the best players.
The USSF knows this. I used to work for them, and they bitched about it all the time.
BINGO. Hit the nail right on the head.
Quote:
I'm not sure I buy the 'if only the best athletes were playing soccer" argument.
The problem I have with the NCAA men's game is the skill level isn't there. When I watch a NCAA Division I game I see very fast athletes who have average to below average ball skills. I don't see great soccer players.
The lack of that skill development is what keeps the U.S. from moving forward on soccer, and the gap with the rest of the world begins at around age 16. I don't have much faith that the USSF will ever figure out how to properly develop talent. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Completely agree. We unquestionably have a huge supply of great athletes here. But on the men's side, the teaching of the technical game is just not like the rest of the world. To me, we teach a very mechanical/text book game, but there is a huge gap with creativity and improvisation.
I don't understand why the whole "we don't have our best athletes playing soccer" is still the excuse. For example, if you watch international basketball you see some great athletes from other countries. But they don't have ball skills that are on par with the NBA. And that's the difference - the skill set.
Quote:
I'm not sure I buy the 'if only the best athletes were playing soccer" argument.
The problem I have with the NCAA men's game is the skill level isn't there. When I watch a NCAA Division I game I see very fast athletes who have average to below average ball skills. I don't see great soccer players.
The lack of that skill development is what keeps the U.S. from moving forward on soccer, and the gap with the rest of the world begins at around age 16. I don't have much faith that the USSF will ever figure out how to properly develop talent. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Completely agree. We unquestionably have a huge supply of great athletes here. But on the men's side, the teaching of the technical game is just not like the rest of the world. To me, we teach a very mechanical/text book game, but there is a huge gap with creativity and improvisation.
I've heard that attributed to the lack of "pick up" soccer played. Kids don't go out and play soccer on their own outside of the constructs of coaching.
Don't get me wrong, a bunch of my friends like soccer. But they are the hardcore obsessed types who bench-warmed the big 3 sports in high school/college and get mad at you for not calling it football. In the U.S, soccer is a niche. Popular, but a niche. It's no different than hockey, lacrosse, tennis, golf, etc. The only three sports people truly care about are baseball, football and basketball. Hockey is a close fourth, especially in the Midwest.
Quote:
In comment 14494503 RobCarpenter said:
Quote:
I'm not sure I buy the 'if only the best athletes were playing soccer" argument.
The problem I have with the NCAA men's game is the skill level isn't there. When I watch a NCAA Division I game I see very fast athletes who have average to below average ball skills. I don't see great soccer players.
The lack of that skill development is what keeps the U.S. from moving forward on soccer, and the gap with the rest of the world begins at around age 16. I don't have much faith that the USSF will ever figure out how to properly develop talent. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Completely agree. We unquestionably have a huge supply of great athletes here. But on the men's side, the teaching of the technical game is just not like the rest of the world. To me, we teach a very mechanical/text book game, but there is a huge gap with creativity and improvisation.
I don't understand why the whole "we don't have our best athletes playing soccer" is still the excuse. For example, if you watch international basketball you see some great athletes from other countries. But they don't have ball skills that are on par with the NBA. And that's the difference - the skill set.
There best athletes are probably playing soccer and not basketball. So they have ok basketball players, but excellent soccer players.
The best soccer player at my high school was an excellent basketball player and he was tall AF.
But guys like AI and Kyrie also honed their genius technical skills by playing 24/7 whether it was a million competitive leagues, or just playing pickup all the time-- They were always dribbling, whether it was 1 on 1, 2 on 2, or 5 on 5. That level of commitment gave them the 10,000 hour mastery of ball control, operating in space, and all of the muscle memory required to be "geniuses."
It is what every aspiring basketball player does growing up. They are always hooping.
And that is what every aspiring soccer player does in countries where soccer is the top sport.
Quote:
Same is true for boys but there are fewer alternative sports that draw girls away when they get to HS. For our town, I think Lacrosse is the biggest competitor for athletes. Some girls play soccer and basketball but there are fewer spots for basketball players.
Lax has been huge the past 6-8 years, youth lax camps springing up like weeds, esp. at younger age groups.
But (at least in NE) lax is a spring sport, soccer fall, so talented athletes can play both (men as well as women), but their respective Club teams do enforce off-season tournaments, i.e., spring and summer, travel required, and there the athletes have to choose one or the other in which to focus their development. I believe soccer continues to lead comfortably in that regard, but shrinking.
Same. We have a great HS girls Lax team and have placed several women in D1 schools (mostly SYR) over the years. Almost all the players were really strong soccer players who were "poached" by the Lax coach. Then, he forbade them to play soccer.
Spring conflicts are tough for the year round soccer player anyway. My daughter tried to run track a couple years in HS and it worked out okay with her soccer teams, but ODP was intractable and her once a week practices after school were in Rockland which was about a 1.5-2hr drive away. One year, unfortunately, the ODP tournament fell on the same day as one of her final exams and the school wouldn't let her take it at a different time. SO, we made it to the tournament (in Princeton, NJ) 3/4 of the way through the first game. We told the coaches about the conflict in advance but they benched her for pretty much the rest of the tournament anyway. She played ODP for many years but always hated it.
I don't know if it has been a successful experiment, but I did forget to include ODP as another way in which colleges are getting a fairly molded product.
But guys like AI and Kyrie also honed their genius technical skills by playing 24/7 whether it was a million competitive leagues, or just playing pickup all the time-- They were always dribbling, whether it was 1 on 1, 2 on 2, or 5 on 5. That level of commitment gave them the 10,000 hour mastery of ball control, operating in space, and all of the muscle memory required to be "geniuses."
It is what every aspiring basketball player does growing up. They are always hooping.
And that is what every aspiring soccer player does in countries where soccer is the top sport.
+1 Exactly.
Quote:
we were among the most athletic teams in the entire field- it was the technical skills that were the problems. I do think that the "genius" athletes who choose other sports (like an Allen Iverson, Kyrie Irving, Odell Beckham) would certainly improve the pool of soccer players if they played soccer.
But guys like AI and Kyrie also honed their genius technical skills by playing 24/7 whether it was a million competitive leagues, or just playing pickup all the time-- They were always dribbling, whether it was 1 on 1, 2 on 2, or 5 on 5. That level of commitment gave them the 10,000 hour mastery of ball control, operating in space, and all of the muscle memory required to be "geniuses."
It is what every aspiring basketball player does growing up. They are always hooping.
And that is what every aspiring soccer player does in countries where soccer is the top sport.
+1 Exactly.
I'm not exactly sure why you don't think that happens here. My experience is that there are a lot of boys and girls that play year round with several leagues and camps and at least something soccer-related almost every day.
Quote:
In comment 14494573 PaulBlakeTSU said:
Quote:
we were among the most athletic teams in the entire field- it was the technical skills that were the problems. I do think that the "genius" athletes who choose other sports (like an Allen Iverson, Kyrie Irving, Odell Beckham) would certainly improve the pool of soccer players if they played soccer.
But guys like AI and Kyrie also honed their genius technical skills by playing 24/7 whether it was a million competitive leagues, or just playing pickup all the time-- They were always dribbling, whether it was 1 on 1, 2 on 2, or 5 on 5. That level of commitment gave them the 10,000 hour mastery of ball control, operating in space, and all of the muscle memory required to be "geniuses."
It is what every aspiring basketball player does growing up. They are always hooping.
And that is what every aspiring soccer player does in countries where soccer is the top sport.
+1 Exactly.
I'm not exactly sure why you don't think that happens here. My experience is that there are a lot of boys and girls that play year round with several leagues and camps and at least something soccer-related almost every day.
They probably have money to play year round.
You can play basketball year round if you want, and you don't have to pay to play. You just need a hoop and a ball.
Men's national soccer won't get to the level it needs to in the US until Soccer becomes a major sport here on the level the NBA is. We're probably several decades removed from that, but there's definitely more interest in soccer in the US than there has been before.
Quote:
In comment 14494578 HoodieGelo said:
Quote:
In comment 14494573 PaulBlakeTSU said:
Quote:
we were among the most athletic teams in the entire field- it was the technical skills that were the problems. I do think that the "genius" athletes who choose other sports (like an Allen Iverson, Kyrie Irving, Odell Beckham) would certainly improve the pool of soccer players if they played soccer.
But guys like AI and Kyrie also honed their genius technical skills by playing 24/7 whether it was a million competitive leagues, or just playing pickup all the time-- They were always dribbling, whether it was 1 on 1, 2 on 2, or 5 on 5. That level of commitment gave them the 10,000 hour mastery of ball control, operating in space, and all of the muscle memory required to be "geniuses."
It is what every aspiring basketball player does growing up. They are always hooping.
And that is what every aspiring soccer player does in countries where soccer is the top sport.
+1 Exactly.
I'm not exactly sure why you don't think that happens here. My experience is that there are a lot of boys and girls that play year round with several leagues and camps and at least something soccer-related almost every day.
They probably have money to play year round.
You can play basketball year round if you want, and you don't have to pay to play. You just need a hoop and a ball.
True. It's wicked expensive. But it still happens.
But I've lived in a number of areas and you don't see a constant pick-up soccer environment. On a nice day, it seems like you can go to any city park, or town, and see kids playing basketball. The courts are constantly full with teams waiting on deck for the nexdt run. The question is how to break through in those areas to always have a soccer game going (even if 5 on 5 or some format like that).
But I've lived in a number of areas and you don't see a constant pick-up soccer environment. On a nice day, it seems like you can go to any city park, or town, and see kids playing basketball. The courts are constantly full with teams waiting on deck for the nexdt run. The question is how to break through in those areas to always have a soccer game going (even if 5 on 5 or some format like that).
Basketball, baseball, and football (our version) were invented here. So I think there will always be a stronger gravitational pull to "our sports".
Europeans/South America, on the other hand, and obviously, have a richer tradition in soccer, tennis, cycling, etc. And that focus just leads to a better player in those sports...
MLS might not want this cause they feel they will be one of the top leagues in the world anyway, and not need Liga MX, but it is something to consider and would move things along much quicker.
Until MLS becomes another NFL, NBA, MLB, or even NHL, soccer will always hit a wall here. We have the correct system. Just have the best league in the world like we do in other sports. It will just take some time.
That would certainly be interesting.
But I've lived in a number of areas and you don't see a constant pick-up soccer environment. On a nice day, it seems like you can go to any city park, or town, and see kids playing basketball. The courts are constantly full with teams waiting on deck for the nexdt run. The question is how to break through in those areas to always have a soccer game going (even if 5 on 5 or some format like that).
This is probably a regional issue. In Charlotte, soccer fields are packed with either teams or with pick-up games all the time.
I see a larger issue than the pick-up game thing. To be a soccer player in the Charlotte area - you have to be dedicated to it solely. The travel/elite teams will forbid their players for playing for their HS teams. If you take a season off - you are often dropped from the program. Only the best players will be allowed to play another sport and keep their spots.
I know that isn't unique to just soccer, as baseball has gotten that way in recent years, but it is a source of contention about how draconian and strict these rules are.
So the free option - playing in HS is frowned upon over the elite leagues that can cost a minimum of $10K per year to play. How to make soccer more accessible since all it takes is a ball, some open arean and a net should be the discussion. Brazilian kids will play on a basketball court. You do that in Charlotte and your coach will kick you off the team for endangering your knees!!
I don't think that's the point of this thread.
Girls youth has been driven by and drove the national team's success. It's symbiotic.
If the USMNT had 2 successive WC successes you'd see a huge uptick in popularity. Hell, if you look at El Tri's popularity in the US, it might be the Mexican national team that does it.
The big difference between boys and girl youth sports is football is attracting and hurting a bunch of boys. Girls don't have that option. As a percentage, more fast strong girls are playing soccer than boys.
But we are moving, rapidly imo, to a point in time where baseball is falling out of favor, at least as a spectator sport. I can see where you it might lose enough popularity to continue to be a huge draw. Basketball will always be limited in total numbers of players who can lay scholastically and the size requirements get worse every year and may shut out a lot of average since zed athletes. And football is getting scarier and scarier for parents as we find out more and more about the long term damages. That could move soccer way up in popularity as a choice for kids to devote their time for excellence.
Wishful thinking?
When the day comes that they are not being chased around by ICE and can compete scholastically for the number of scholarships that the typical NCAAA college hands out for say, American football, THEN there can be a real American soccer presence.
https://www.ncsasports.org/mens-soccer/scholarships
(That's going to take a least two more generations to happen, if it ever does)
Today's Reality - The overwhelming percentage super sports conscious (that's what it takes) American parent dreams about their boys playing in the NFL, NBA and MLB, not pro soccer.
On another thread you (FMiC) said, IIRC, that Jozy Altidore is a world class finisher/striker (can't recall which). Who would you compare him to? Sergio Aguero? Harry Kane? Mbappe? Certainly, I would not compare him with Ronaldo, who might be a step ahead of the guys I list.
Now, having seen a LOT of youth soccer I see a LOT of talent there. Where does it go? Is the college system to blame? Is ODP to blame? I don't see talent on the USMNT that you see on top international sides.
In comment 14494336 FatMan in Charlotte said:
The collegiate sport hasn't failed the men. It is only one outlet for them to participate.
And for that matter, the collegiate system hasn't "worked" for the women. But it is one of the few places for women to play for development. All of those girls also played in travel/youth development leagues in addition to college.
What's more important is that the women have a more cohesive team that's well-constructed. For years, the men built up their reputation and while they weren't as creative as traditional powerhouses, they had a lot of clinical skills. The USMNT doesn't lack talent - it lacks cohesiveness and proper roster construction. Under Bradley, they had a well-built team. Thank the US Soccer Association and Klinsmann for trashing that and trying to take the team in a European direction without a European foundation at lower levels to build from.
And I really should say that the USMNT pool doesn't lack talent. I have a lot of issues with the way the roster is constructed and how youth players are developed.
Seems you are more interested in semantics. Altidore is a World-class striker. That doesn't mean he has to be Aguero - it just means he is an excellent goal scorer.
Now the question of what happens to players developing is an excellent one. We have been a top 15 team in the world yet the way we've developed our youth players has been stalled and mismanaged. It isn't that we don't have talent - but there have been roadblocks. Klinsmann basically created a dead zone of the 22-25 year olds who came out of the collegiate system or played MLS in favor of foreign nationals. Those players developmental years and primes were ignored. Now the current leadership keeps trotting out guys like Bradley and Zardes, while more talented and promising players are left off of the squad. Not because they aren't talented - but because the leadership of the USSF is screwing up.
Nope, not interested in semantics, I just disagree that Jozy is world-class. He's likely the best on the USMNT. I listed those other players who I consider to be world-class because I was and am interested in the standard you were using to make that statement. I wouldn't mention Altidore in the same group as any of those guys.
Your comments on Klinsmann make sense to me and the results of that regime are unfortunate. Do you think Jordan Morris, who came through the US collegiate system, is getting the best development now in MLS? Do you think he could have progressed better in a situation like Pulisic?
In comment 14495027 FatMan in Charlotte said:
And I really should say that the USMNT pool doesn't lack talent. I have a lot of issues with the way the roster is constructed and how youth players are developed.
Seems you are more interested in semantics. Altidore is a World-class striker. That doesn't mean he has to be Aguero - it just means he is an excellent goal scorer.
Now the question of what happens to players developing is an excellent one. We have been a top 15 team in the world yet the way we've developed our youth players has been stalled and mismanaged. It isn't that we don't have talent - but there have been roadblocks. Klinsmann basically created a dead zone of the 22-25 year olds who came out of the collegiate system or played MLS in favor of foreign nationals. Those players developmental years and primes were ignored. Now the current leadership keeps trotting out guys like Bradley and Zardes, while more talented and promising players are left off of the squad. Not because they aren't talented - but because the leadership of the USSF is screwing up.
And from a theoretical point of view, Klinsmann's approach made sense. Where it fell down is that there was no infrastructure here to keep it going. He tried to build a German/European model in a country that doesn't have the same academy development.
We'll just have to disagree about Altidore. The US has been able to progress in World Cups with guys like Altidore, Donovan and Dempsey. All of them have/had skills that make them worthy of competing at the highest levels of International play. To me, that is World Class.
Quote:
Do you think Jordan Morris, who came through the US collegiate system, is getting the best development now in MLS? Do you think he could have progressed better in a situation like Pulisic?
And from a theoretical point of view, Klinsmann's approach made sense. Where it fell down is that there was no infrastructure here to keep it going. He tried to build a German/European model in a country that doesn't have the same academy development.
We'll just have to disagree about Altidore. The US has been able to progress in World Cups with guys like Altidore, Donovan and Dempsey. All of them have/had skills that make them worthy of competing at the highest levels of International play. To me, that is World Class.
Watching Altidore fend off players, catch the ball softly on his foot and move through defenders the other night was pretty remarkable. He was clearly a substantial upgrade over what have been there since his injury. His conditioning is not where it should be and it showed Sunday night. But when he is in the game, the USMNT front line is completely different and dangerous.
He scored 1 goal when he played in the EPL for Sunderland. He scored 1 goal for Hull City when they were in the EPL. Sorry, that's not world class level.
The distance between him and real world class strikers - like Ronaldo, Messi, Suarez, Lewandowski, Kane, Salah, Benz, etc - is as wide as the Pacific Ocean.
Honestly, the USMNT has never had a WC striker. Closest I have seen in the past 30 years was Brian McBride who was excellent on set pieces and corners.
Best midfielder by a wide margin that the USMNT had was Claudio Reyna who could possess the ball against WC talent and not play negatively.
Bradley and Donavan were also WC talented players who were surrounded by good players.
This current team has 1 maybe 2 WC talented players in Pulisic and McKinnie. We have a long way to go to become a WC team.
The US Soccer Federation needs to make a decision to start playing the young players in hopes that they can develop into a strong team in the future.
Please no more Bradley. He needs to retire from the national team.
Why wasn’t Ramos considered for the head coach? Berhalter is a mistake as the HC. Screw politics of Soccer Federation!!!!
Here there are so many options. Sure some top athletes stay in soccer, but many others pick basketball, football, and baseball. So yes we have good athletes, but across the board we don't have the same pool as other countries. The reverse is obvious in sports like basketball, where the rest of the countries are much weaker than the US.
Here there are so many options. Sure some top athletes stay in soccer, but many others pick basketball, football, and baseball. So yes we have good athletes, but across the board we don't have the same pool as other countries. The reverse is obvious in sports like basketball, where the rest of the countries are much weaker than the US.
I don't buy that theory whatsoever. Soccer requires a specific skill set, as does baseball, or playing QB. There is no reason to assume any of these athletes you mention have the necessary skills to cross over. You mention Michael Jordan. Well how good a baseball player was Michael Jordan? The answer is not a very good minor leaguer. Soccer has many skill requirements just like baseball. Remember when Chad Johnson tried out for KC in the mls. They were wowed by his speed, but did it get him an offer? The fast guy that we love in thee nfl, that doesnt normally translate in soccer. Usually the fast guy on a soccer club is a change of pace, gimmick play, nothing more. Almost all the great soccer players lack elite top end speed or enormous power or quick twitch reflexes. Almost all can handle a ball brilliantly with their feet and have great endurance. Do not project US athletes into soccer, it sounds good in theory but it would not work.
Quote:
In other countries the best athletes play soccer. SO Michael Jordan would play soccer, so would Lebron, LT, and Barkley.
Here there are so many options. Sure some top athletes stay in soccer, but many others pick basketball, football, and baseball. So yes we have good athletes, but across the board we don't have the same pool as other countries. The reverse is obvious in sports like basketball, where the rest of the countries are much weaker than the US.
I don't buy that theory whatsoever. Soccer requires a specific skill set, as does baseball, or playing QB. There is no reason to assume any of these athletes you mention have the necessary skills to cross over. You mention Michael Jordan. Well how good a baseball player was Michael Jordan? The answer is not a very good minor leaguer. Soccer has many skill requirements just like baseball. Remember when Chad Johnson tried out for KC in the mls. They were wowed by his speed, but did it get him an offer? The fast guy that we love in thee nfl, that doesnt normally translate in soccer. Usually the fast guy on a soccer club is a change of pace, gimmick play, nothing more. Almost all the great soccer players lack elite top end speed or enormous power or quick twitch reflexes. Almost all can handle a ball brilliantly with their feet and have great endurance. Do not project US athletes into soccer, it sounds good in theory but it would not work.
When you have a larger talent pool to draw from you will get better players. So maybe Michael Jordan isn't that good, but I'd bet many struggling basketball or football players would be excellent soccer players. The problem is they never tried it. In other countries everyone plays, and the ones who can't cut it move on to other things.
There is really no other team sport option for him to participate in... And back to soccer, the girl or two that play in his camp, play in the boys training. There is no dedicated girls team/league here and I live in one of the more "progressively advanced" sections of Brazil.
Mexican fans - ( New Window )
I think it's that the genius level athletes in the US-- the ones who from age 7(?) and on stand out from their peers or not only their speed/agility, but their innate excellence with their motor skills, coordination, spatial awareness-- the ones who seemingly are the best athlete in their grade in every sport-- how many of them early on are finding soccer and sticking with soccer as their prime sport?
There are still plenty of US kids playing soccer, and sticking with soccer, and our massive population will then yield high-level athletes playing the sport-- but are we getting our "geniuses?"
Messi and Ronaldo might be the two greatest soccer players of all time. If they were born in the United States, what are the odds that they would end up as soccer players? It's possible, but I'm guessing that they would have excelled at all sports that were available to them and probably would have put more attention early on towards basketball and football and by the time they were old enough to realize they likely wouldn't become pro in those sports, they no longer would have been on the path to become the soccer geniuses they are today.
He's 5'7" and is slight. It is likely with his build he still would be a soccer player, even if he was born in the US.
He'd probably be great at those sports as a kid, in middle school, and maybe even in high school depending on where he would have grown up. IF he went down the basketball path, perhaps his dream is cut short in high school as everyone keeps growing and he doesn't. But by that point, soccer hasn't been his main focus and so he never becomes the player he does by growing up in a country where the best thing you could do would be to be a soccer star and it was the only sport you played.