Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

US Soccer thread.


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, DC9 said:

I'm not huge on Bruce Arena... at all.  But we'll get qualified.

Need to hire someone proper and forward leaning in the meantime.

Klinsmann did a lot of good for our program and I won't forget that.  But we've outgrown him as a manager.

Very good post.  I still have a soft spot in my heart for Arena leading DC United to glory, but that is in the past.

He's not the long-term person for the job, but to get the US righted and qualified, I think he's the best option the US has.

Agree with Klinsi.  I think he pushed the program forward and identified new/younger players, but he just couldn't let himself use those players in games.

13 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

So if Arena is so good why has Galaxy been floundering and grasping at aged Euro players that are more interested in retiring?

Because the league and LA ownership still think there is another David Beckham out there.  Not Bruce's fault.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

Doesn't matter who is head until he gets better talent. We want to be WC semi finalists but don't even have one legit champions league player. 

I know it is a little off subject, but how is your rehab going?  You doing OK?  Hope all is well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arena for being a lacrosse coach has managed soccer teams very well. I think he "man manages" well and he has a good rapport with his players. 

Klinsmann was never the problem. He probably did more good than he was given credit for

5 minutes ago, btfoom said:

I know it is a little off subject, but how is your rehab going?  You doing OK?  Hope all is well.

Rehab is good. A friend of mine is director of the rehab place and he's taking good care of me.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question specifically about US Soccer in general not so much the USNT, I'll put it here because this is the more popular parent thread, but I can put it in tbe otber one if nevessary.

QUESTION:

I recently read an article about the impact of college soccer on the MLS and USMNT. It cited several reasons why the college structure is holding back US development, namely schedule and training duration, abbreviated season, substitutions, and limits on players off the college pitch. As soon as I find it I'll post here.

http://www.foxsports.com/soccer/gallery/the-7-biggest-flaws-of-college-soccer-111816

But I wanted to see if this line of thinking is unique or if it is prevalent.

A lot of what it says rings true but at the same time I wonder why the USWNT has found success with the same structure.

*edit: article link

Edited by AsburySkinsFan
Link to post
Share on other sites

All the other women's teams don't draw from as big a pool of players, aren't as well funded (Brazil women used to take hand me down uniforms from the "U-" boys teams), women's sports aren't as supported as they are here. 

WNT don't play a good brand of soccer and other countries seem to be gaining ground. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

All the other women's teams don't draw from as big a pool of players, aren't as well funded (Brazil women used to take hand me down uniforms from the "U-" boys teams), women's sports aren't as supported as they are here. 

WNT don't play a good brand of soccer and other countries seem to be gaining ground. 

I agree, my reference to the USWNT was more of a side point, I'm more interested in the larger discussion about the impact of college soccer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I agree, my reference to the USWNT was more of a side point, I'm more interested in the larger discussion about the impact of college soccer.

From what I've seen personally, our boys can compete till about the late teens. ESP now that youth coaching is somewhat better. A poster here, his kids played for the Man CITY academy but he moved to the US and he had nice things to say about the quality he found here. 

What happens around age 16? Well, the oaths diverge. Ours gets less focused, less focused on development (more so than it already is) and Europe and Latin America get laser focused on identifying and bringing through promising players.

USA, high school trains once for every 3 games. There they are probably the inverse. Here the focus is to win state cup, so the emphasis isn't on learning. There, they are training almost daily with one game per week. High school is basically half a year lost. The other half is spent with Club preparing to "show" and win showcase tournaments-again less in development of players' mental game (mostly). Unlimited subs also prepare our players poorly.

College, because of football, has limited contact with coaches throughout the year. They have a whole staffs dedicated to soccer year-soccer,medical,etc. again, games are geared toward winning and not development.

in Belgium, for example, for probably the last two decades, they have been asking all clubs to train in a 433 system. Most if not all comply. By the time they are in their 20s they know that 433 system in their sleep.

So as you can see, and klinsmann man referred to this as the inverted priorities, at aged where focus on development is critical, we lose focus. We lose critical years between 16-22 and wonder why we can't break through.

Things are changing though. Columbus Crew, for example, do unheard of things even five years ago.They monitor players growth rates and once they detect a growth spurt, they shut down training as to not stunt a player's growth. Diets are monitored from age 13. Total games played in a calendar year are capped-morenis NOT better.

The professionalization of our youth system (MLS academies), as well as more intensive coaching education is another Klinsmann legacy that very few will know or acknowledge. 

Hopefully, And I think, Pulisic is just the leading edge. But the key will be parents letting players try their hand abroad instead of the sure thing in college. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

This a terrible development.  I wished the best for Klinsmann, and he did some great things, but he couldn't get the players to play for him.  I have no idea whether the back line woes are Klinsmann's strategy and/or the players themselves.  More the players if you ask me, they are professionals.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Elessar78 said:

From what I've seen personally, our boys can compete till about the late teens. ESP now that youth coaching is somewhat better. A poster here, his kids played for the Man CITY academy but he moved to the US and he had nice things to say about the quality he found here. 

What happens around age 16? Well, the oaths diverge. Ours gets less focused, less focused on development (more so than it already is) and Europe and Latin America get laser focused on identifying and bringing through promising players.

USA, high school trains once for every 3 games. There they are probably the inverse. Here the focus is to win state cup, so the emphasis isn't on learning. There, they are training almost daily with one game per week. High school is basically half a year lost. The other half is spent with Club preparing to "show" and win showcase tournaments-again less in development of players' mental game (mostly). Unlimited subs also prepare our players poorly.

College, because of football, has limited contact with coaches throughout the year. They have a whole staffs dedicated to soccer year-soccer,medical,etc. again, games are geared toward winning and not development.

in Belgium, for example, for probably the last two decades, they have been asking all clubs to train in a 433 system. Most if not all comply. By the time they are in their 20s they know that 433 system in their sleep.

So as you can see, and klinsmann man referred to this as the inverted priorities, at aged where focus on development is critical, we lose focus. We lose critical years between 16-22 and wonder why we can't break through.

Things are changing though. Columbus Crew, for example, do unheard of things even five years ago.They monitor players growth rates and once they detect a growth spurt, they shut down training as to not stunt a player's growth. Diets are monitored from age 13. Total games played in a calendar year are capped-morenis NOT better.

The professionalization of our youth system (MLS academies), as well as more intensive coaching education is another Klinsmann legacy that very few will know or acknowledge. 

Hopefully, And I think, Pulisic is just the leading edge. But the key will be parents letting players try their hand abroad instead of the sure thing in college. 

It's frustrating to me because my son's coaches are saying that he has the potential (currently a Freshman) to be the first Div-1 player from his school's soccer program.  But the more I look at the player development the more I wonder if that's the right path.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

College is the right path if that's his ceiling. No offense of course. If he's got potential to go beyond, people will find you and let you know. 

Youre inluck though. GKs are slightly different in that heir development is almost always purely focused on technique. Tim Howard, Friedel both went to college. 

Two of our guys got scouted by Columbus Crew at age 15/16. The scout was there to scout someone else and they caught his eye. A gk and a field player.

Get him into Olympic Development Program so he can get visibility from the national team. If he's good he'll be on their radar. There are State, regional and national camps and tournaments for ODP that the player has to be invited to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

It's frustrating to me because my son's coaches are saying that he has the potential (currently a Freshman) to be the first Div-1 player from his school's soccer program.  But the more I look at the player development the more I wonder if that's the right path.

If his HS team is his 1st team, he's most likely not going anywhere.  Players need to be in a high level club program as early as possible and it takes incredible sacrifice by the parents.  A good friend of mine has 2 daughters, the oldest is 17 and has trained with the USWT and professional clubs abroad for 3-4 years. Along with playing for her local club, a ECNL club (which could play just about anywhere in the US on any given weekend), the State ODP team and finally her HS when she has time. The younger is entering this window.  This is the correct path for a player, and very few parents and kids are willing and able to pull it off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TimmySmith said:

If his HS team is his 1st team, he's most likely not going anywhere.  Players need to be in a high level club program as early as possible and it takes incredible sacrifice by the parents.  A good friend of mine has 2 daughters, the oldest is 17 and has trained with the USWT and professional clubs abroad for 3-4 years. Along with playing for her local club, a ECNL club (which could play just about anywhere in the US on any given weekend), the State ODP team and finally her HS when she has time. The younger is entering this window.  This is the correct path for a player, and very few parents and kids are willing and able to pull it off.

I'll add my 2 cents.

This is the correct path in the US now, and for girls it may continue to be, but if the US ever wants to be relevant on the world stage in men's soccer, I believe they need to follow the European model.

School teams, club academies, and ODP are fine and dandy, but do not get our players developed during that formative period, as mentioned above, of 15-20 when they can become world class players. I believe that the way to properly do that is to have extensive professional team structures with youth academies, where players can train full time into professional players. I also think US Soccer needs to institute promotion and relegation leagues into its professional system.

Take Charlotte, where I live as an example. We have a USL team, the Independence, here that is well followed, but plays in  a "stadium" crafted from a park field, that holds maybe 2000 fans. To get an MLS team here, we would have to be awarded a franchise, find a new buyer, a build a new stadium. Instead, why shouldn't the Independence have the ability to invest capital in an effort to improve team and facilities, with the carrot at the end of the stick being promotion into the MLS, and the cash influx that would bring. 

Maddening to me that the greatest free-hand economy in the world would not promote free-hand economics in a sport that has been shown to succeed doing so.

The US is late to the soccer party, but that doesn't mean we can't join. Soccer is available on TV now throughout the week, and many people 35 years old and under in the US played some soccer, at some level growing up.

If the US wants to have a world class team, they must have world class players, and to make world class players, they have to have world class development. The way to that development is through professional teams, with professional academies. That way, our most talented kids will not have to go overseas to get that professional development when they are 15-20 years old.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly every other soccer league in the world "grew up" organically. The joined the local football association. It was an "open" structure. MLS is a "closed" structure. To me, it's simple, open it up and allow promotion/relegation. The cut throat nature of promotion/relegation will sort things out. It, IMO, will improve player development, it will improve all teams. The league isn't that big, even if it's only one team right now that goes into promotion/relegation.

The big question is whether Railhawks or Kickers can afford all the travel being in MLS were they to get promoted. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

Nearly every other soccer league in the world "grew up" organically. The joined the local football association. It was an "open" structure. MLS is a "closed" structure. To me, it's simple, open it up and allow promotion/relegation. The cut throat nature of promotion/relegation will sort things out. It, IMO, will improve player development, it will improve all teams. The league isn't that big, even if it's only one team right now that goes into promotion/relegation.

The big question is whether Railhawks or Kickers can afford all the travel being in MLS were they to get promoted. 

It's the American structure of all sports and comes from greed and control.  That is why the MLS adopted it.  If we had an impartial and controlling FA in this country would be better off.

Edited by TimmySmith
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I agree, my reference to the USWNT was more of a side point, I'm more interested in the larger discussion about the impact of college soccer.

Global standard: 18-21, you are training and playing to be on a club's first team professionally all year

College standard: 18-21, you are restricted from training with the college team all year (same as NCAA football rules)

Don't get me started about college soccer's unlimited substitutions rule.

passes.jpg

http://www.topdrawersoccer.com/the91stminute/2016/03/the-sub-rule-scheduling-are-college-soccers-most-nefarious-contributions/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Klinsman was right when he said many don't understand soccer, this guy was a world class player, he has won every major club and international championship as a player so he understands what's needed to take that next step.

Exchanging him for Arena makes me want to puke, to me we have nothing to look forward to until 2022.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Klinsmann was head coach and technical director. He was in charge of youth and senior. His youth teams run by his sidekicks missed two Olympics. That was a first like ever.  He complained the talent wasn't there for him while he had 5 years to find and develop it. We have better results in WC and continental tournies with a lesser mls and talent. US soccer overall is on the rise more than ever in history as far as talent and viewership.

2.He demanded the US become a soccer country that would tell players they sucked right on the street. Guess what he got his wish. He demanded pressure and he got it.

3. Historically bad results including the first loss to Mexico in 25 years in home soil qualifying. Worst loss then since 1950s to Costa Rica. Worst finish the gold cup. Loss a do or die game in the concacaf cup against Mexico.  The group of death was not as bad as we thought as we played a average Ghana(bunkered most of the game), makeshift Portugal with a 50% Ronaldo, and Germany who we bunkered against. We had the lowest possession stat wise of any US team at the WC ever.

4. He destroyed bridges with the fans and MLS by called it bad and demanding they play in Europe. Not to mention saying the fans didn't understand soccer. He was bias toward German Americans and ran other players completely out of the pool that could contribute. 

5. His cluelessness was noted by multiple bayern players who wrote about him. Not to mention him publicly saying that low did the primary work for the 2006 WC.

8 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

That sucks. So what about Arenas commenting multiple times basically saying that dual citizenship players arent American and shouldnt play for America? We are ****ed.

Read the full explanation. He said what matters is that they put on the jersey and care about the US the same. If they don't he doesn't want them representing the country.

 

note: He had a bunch of dual nationals he gave a bunch of caps to but no one does any research.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

That sucks. So what about Arenas commenting multiple times basically saying that dual citizenship players arent American and shouldnt play for America? We are ****ed.

Dude. Make American Soccer Great Again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jschuck12001 said:

Klinsman was right when he said many don't understand soccer, this guy was a world class player, he has won every major club and international championship as a player so he understands what's needed to take that next step.

.....

 

Great players often don't make great coaches.

He would be a prime example. 

Coaching and playing are a Worlds apart. 

Hail. 

Edited by Gibbs Hog Heaven
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, RichmondRedskin88 said:

 

5. His cluelessness was noted by multiple bayern players who wrote about him. Not to mention him publicly saying that low did the primary work for the 2006 WC.

He's open to a lot of criticism but I think this is poor point on which to criticize him. In many management circles, "hire good people and get the hell out of their way." is a very legitimate way to lead an organization.

Ferguson, hired a good string of them from Qeiroz to Muelensteen—guys who were never good/great on their own as managers. 

And to me, he gets full credit for discovering Low as he was some obscure manager/assistant for most of his career. 

I also think that's a generational thing. Similar charges were levied against his strike partner Rudi Voller. I think there was an age where players could be expected to "figure things out on their own" to an extent. It's certainly different these days where a high level of orchestration is the norm and we have inches thick dossiers on each new opponent every 3 days. Young pros grow up in that environment and come to expect it. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...