Interesting article as to why the US isn't better at Pro Soccer

[kc78]

I found the discussion about the college system intriguing. It is true that our youth teams seem to compete very well on the International stage and then it all falls apart. The college system is completely different from true soccer. I'm not as knowledgeable about all of the ins and outs of how our soccer system compares to International systems, but I have heard Klinnsmann mention this. What are your thoughts?

"What happens as a result of this is that in their prime professional development age, American soccer players don't play by the same rules as the rest of the world. Whereas soccer at the top level is largely a players game, college soccer gives much more power to the coaches. As a result, our players don't learn how to think and read the game in real time because in college soccer, if something isn't going right, the coach can make a sub. If someone is tired, the coach can make a sub. This creates an unrealistic picture of the game at the college level which has much more to do with coaching decisions and physical exertion than it does with playing the nuances of the game."

"As a result, American soccer teams, even at the elite level, tend to be incredibly fit, strong, and organized, but we lose because we are very unoriginal, unintelligent (soccer wise), and technically not as good as the teams we play."

Two Possible Reasons why the US isn't better

 

[Vizike Is Back!]

International systems have clubs associated with their teams (think Manchester United, etc). Kids are brought in early into these clubs and it becomes a part of their lives. It has nothing to do with college and subbing.

 

[rdbarks10]

As a former college player, I get what he is saying but I think it has more to do with style of play. Americans are taught to the clear the ball too much or just play a "through ball" style. There is a lot more of playing the ball out of bounds in MLS as compared to EPL, La Liga, Seria A, Bundesliga. Also at the college level there is a lot more of take it down the line and cross it style. Also players focus too much on heading the ball instead of taking it down and playing it to a team mate.

Honestly, the academy system is the way to go if you want to be a pro so you can adjust to the physical demands.
This post was edited on 6/19 2:14 PM by rdbarks10

 

[NoleMoreTears]

I think it goes much deeper. You need at least 3 generations of interest to begin to develop a legitimate framework.

Gen #1 has to start playing the sport, despite relatively poor coaching and few opportunities. We're passed that point as we all know tons of kids are exposed to the game.

But that generation has to then translate their passion into coaching generation #2 at the youth levels. We're sort of there but lots of local soccer leagues are coached by babysitters and not soccer players.

Finally, generation #3 can benefit from having some decades of legitimate coaching across levels of the sport. There's maybe a couple pockets in the US with that track record.

The US basically followed this pattern in hockey and since developed a good youth national system. It needs some work but the results show up as the country being far stronger and deeper than ever before. The start of that was the 1980 Olympic games which expanded the map. More players played but it wasn't until quality deep coaching emerged from that enthusiasm that we made legitimate strides.

For soccer it's harder to identify that spark point - maybe the 1994 World Cup? But it's surely moving and it certainly will take time.

 

[GwinnettNole]

Originally posted by Vizike Is Back!:
International systems have clubs associated with their teams (think Manchester United, etc). Kids are brought in early into these clubs and it becomes a part of their lives. It has nothing to do with college and subbing.

Not sure I agree with that bolded part last sentence... I know Jurgen Klinsman hates college soccer. The reason is the limits in which the NCAA allows college kids time to practice....thus they spend the critical soccer developmental years of 18-22 with not as much practice as the Euro players who are well established into the professional clubs already.

It's really two different models on how pro sports works:

In Europe kids are signed at a young age (early as 12) and attend 'school' at those clubs academies.
In the US... we funnel kids through our college system and require kids to get drafted as opposed to the Euro model which allows any team that finds a kid can have his rights.

So in essence the college system does hinder player development when compared to the European model.
The best route would be to go the baseball route. Allow kids the decision to go pro at 18 or go to college and be a "student athlete."

 

[NoleMoreTears]

I'll wager it's the coaching at younger and "lower" levels that makes more of a difference. For example, the USA has many players play college hockey with about 35 games while the Canadian counterparts are in junior playing 70+ games a year. The Canadians come to the NHL with more skill but the US players have spent dedicated time with legitimate training and are thus better physically prepared to handle the workload. In terms of success per # of potential players, the two countries fare pretty similar.

There are benefits to having fewer games, as long as the skill coaching is solid. Clearly, the US doesn't have widespread local coaches who really know their soccer. Again, it takes a good 3 generations to really understand the issues and see where the US can go.

I do agree players should be able to turn pro with more flexibility. Both baseball and hockey allow you to sign out of high school, after 2 years of college, or once done with NCAA eligibility.

 

[TexasGooner]

College is a waste of time if we're trying to compete with the top nations in the world. By the time a player is 22, he should already be playing professionally, training professionally, made his way into the first team of the club, etc. Soccer is a young man's game, and the four years spent in college, where the coaching, facilities, rules, seriousness, etc. are sub par, is a real detriment to development. I feel bad saying our players should avoid college but it's the truth in this context. The youth academy set up is the way to go, which MLS is doing but we need to go further.

 

[rdbarks10]

I really think both can exist, the college game and the academy system. When you think about it only a small percentage are going to go through the academies. The real challenge is getting a kid to go play aboard at the age of 18. Every now and then you'll have a kid come through the college ranks to be a star like Dempsey did but most of our players started their pro career at 18.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]

 

[TexasGooner]

Both can exist but one will be a way better option in the future. I'm thinking, if soccer continues to grow, MLS continues to grow and along with it the youth set up and academies, only the odd college player will ever make it to MLS.

 

[GwinnettNole]

Originally posted by TexasGooner:


Both can exist but one will be a way better option in the future. I'm thinking, if soccer continues to grow, MLS continues to grow and along with it the youth set up and academies, only the odd college player will ever make it to MLS.

I think there is room for both-- as college sports is an America tradition. I think what you will see happen is very similar to baseball. Very few of the best going the college route and even fewer will make it big in the "majors" (MLS).

 

[TexasGooner]

Originally posted by GwinnettNole:

Originally posted by TexasGooner:


Both can exist but one will be a way better option in the future. I'm thinking, if soccer continues to grow, MLS continues to grow and along with it the youth set up and academies, only the odd college player will ever make it to MLS.

I think there is room for both-- as college sports is an America tradition. I think what you will see happen is very similar to baseball. Very few of the best going the college route and even fewer will make it big in the "majors" (MLS).

You may be right. The problem with comparing it to baseball is that soccer is a young man's game. The four years of college soccer are more critical in a player's career/development than a baseball player going to college for four years. I guess we'll see.....

 

[bcherod]

Originally posted by TexasGooner:

Originally posted by GwinnettNole:

Originally posted by TexasGooner:


Both can exist but one will be a way better option in the future. I'm thinking, if soccer continues to grow, MLS continues to grow and along with it the youth set up and academies, only the odd college player will ever make it to MLS.

I think there is room for both-- as college sports is an America tradition. I think what you will see happen is very similar to baseball. Very few of the best going the college route and even fewer will make it big in the "majors" (MLS).

You may be right. The problem with comparing it to baseball is that soccer is a young man's game. The four years of college soccer are more critical in a player's career/development than a baseball player going to college for four years. I guess we'll see.....

I agree. Also, many of the "kids" are playing in major matches by the time they are 20. In other countries they are developed this way.

I think it will be a rare player that is able to go the college route unless we raise the level of the college game, and make it more like international rules.

 

[GwinnettNole]

Originally posted by bcherod:
I agree. Also, many of the "kids" are playing in major matches by the time they are 20. In other countries they are developed this way.

I think it will be a rare player that is able to go the college route unless we raise the level of the college game, and make it more like international rules.

That goes without saying for sure

 

[NoleMoreTears]

Originally posted by GwinnettNole:

Originally posted by TexasGooner:


Both can exist but one will be a way better option in the future. I'm thinking, if soccer continues to grow, MLS continues to grow and along with it the youth set up and academies, only the odd college player will ever make it to MLS.

I think there is room for both-- as college sports is an America tradition. I think what you will see happen is very similar to baseball. Very few of the best going the college route and even fewer will make it big in the "majors" (MLS).

I generally agree.

Going back to the model of hockey, the USA has been extremely successful with many players playing college (the option to turn pro after 2+ years), some playing USHL (no pay but more games and coaching), some playing major junior in Canada (semi-pro), and still others going straight to the pro system at 17 or 18.

To Gooner's point: even Canadians are starting to diversify as the attraction of a US degree and different exposures grows. I can say some very major household names went the US college route and some equally big names, who decades ago would scoff at the idea, considered it before going junior instead. It is far from a hindrance.

This "room for both" approach would NEVER have happened without the major improvement in youth coaching and development models.

In essence by the time the kids are 18 it's years too late for some...college isn't the problem.

 

[GbrNole]

US youth soccer is doing a much better job of identifying talented young players early so that they can be developed properly and raise their soccer IQ.

One of the bigger barriers is cost. It's a business in the US, in Europe it's an investment by the academies.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]