Club soccer stuff that drive you nuts...

To all of those that watched the video, did the video include the beginning of the game and the injury? Were any of you there? I was there. I saw the beginning of the game, I saw the injury, I saw the effect it had on the players. At the restart the players had already decided to slow the game down, both sides. Within a minute of the restart, both teams dialed it back completely. They were under no obligation to please any of you. USYS did not sanction either team, even though the NY parents made sure the tournament directors were on the sideline. One of the negative things about all of the media coverage was the derogatory comments by adults directed at the younger Carlsbad teams.
 
Surf Zombie said:
If winning some little tournament is the objective why not go big? Just sand bag it and put them in a much lower bracket than they belong in and destroy everyone. Am I right?
Click to expand...
Do you even know what tournament this was and the context in which it was played? From you comment, I don't think you know what you are talking about. There were no lower brackets. There was no bigger tournament. It was the USYS National Championships, before GDA. It was played at in Frisco, Texas in July.
 
El Clasico said:
That is pretty bold.
Click to expand...

Bold, yes, but interesting too (insert Irish Spring whistle). Interesting in that the "not getting futbol" post was accompanied by a separate thread to compare/contrast/discuss the whole situation. If the statement had been "You guys just don't get club soccer" I would have said you are probably right. At the beginning of "Inverting the Pyramid" Jonathan Wilson writes "In the beginning, there was chaos and soccer was without form". The cynic in me wants to have the second sentence be "Then parents created something called club soccer so they could compete against one another using their children as proxies". But clearly that is just a part of it.

Getting ready for his senior year of high school and contemplating what's next, my son is like soccer needs to be part of it. Back in Ulittle I used to think the answers to "what's development" and "what are we developing all these kids for" would basically just involve positive life lessons, blah blah blah. But it turns out to be more visceral than that. And having not played the game myself growing up it is possible I will never be able to truly "get futbol". Perhaps "getting fubol" does involve developing an appreciation of how some games can be simply meaningless, deserving of being played with non-effort to achieve a non-result for strategic reasons to advance in a tournament. But I suspect getting fubol is a deeper dive than that.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Bold, yes, but interesting too (insert Irish Spring whistle). Interesting in that the "not getting futbol" post was accompanied by a separate thread to compare/contrast/discuss the whole situation. If the statement had been "You guys just don't get club soccer" I would have said you are probably right. At the beginning of "Inverting the Pyramid" Jonathan Wilson writes "In the beginning, there was chaos and soccer was without form". The cynic in me wants to have the second sentence be "Then parents created something called club soccer so they could compete against one another using their children as proxies". But clearly that is just a part of it.

Getting ready for his senior year of high school and contemplating what's next, my son is like soccer needs to be part of it. Back in Ulittle I used to think the answers to "what's development" and "what are we developing all these kids for" would basically just involve positive life lessons, blah blah blah. But it turns out to be more visceral than that. And having not played the game myself growing up it is possible I will never be able to truly "get futbol". Perhaps "getting fubol" does involve developing an appreciation of how some games can be simply meaningless, deserving of being played with non-effort to achieve a non-result for strategic reasons to advance in a tournament. But I suspect getting fubol is a deeper dive than that.
Click to expand...

“getting futbol” is difficult for Americans to understand because less than lacrosse, water polo, or even futsal, it’s not really a game about scoring. It’s a game about mistakes and punishing mistakes when your opponent has made them. It has tactically more in common with speed chess than gridiron football. The ideal soccer game is a zero zero draw with no mistakes made...what’s weird about this scenario is it’s an artificial way of creating that because neither side is really trying hence mistakes can’t happen. Tactically smart chess but makes for a boring match.
 
Or perhaps I should say disagree with the first part in the context of a philosophy of play. Having a 0-0 draw as a hard fought outcome is different than purposefully trying to achieve it as a non-result.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Or perhaps I should say disagree with the first part in the context of a philosophy of play. Having a 0-0 draw as a hard fought outcome is different than purposefully trying to achieve it as a non-result.
Click to expand...
A 4-4-2 formation is “different” from a 4-3–3 formation. The fact that the tactics are different doesn’t matter. What matters is that it is an additional tactical tool. Why limit the tools in the toolbox?
 
I don't think anybody is saying a 0-0 draw cannot be entertaining, fascinating, etc. And given its July 4, I don't think having a dim view of a 0-0 draw achieved because two teams find the game meaningless is just an ugly-Americanism. Its just ugly.
 
MacDre said:
A 4-4-2 formation is “different” from a 4-3–3 formation. The fact that the tactics are different doesn’t matter. What matters is that it is an additional tactical tool. Why limit the tools in the toolbox?
Click to expand...

Again, whatever lineup a team chooses to play reflects their system to play. And good teams can switch between more defensive or offensive systems as the situation dictates. Choosing NOT to meaningfully play as a tactic is, in my view, something qualitatively separate from that. It reflects a difference in how a team philosophically approaches the matches in which they play. Obviously, YMMV.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Or perhaps I should say disagree with the first part in the context of a philosophy of play. Having a 0-0 draw as a hard fought outcome is different than purposefully trying to achieve it as a non-result.
Click to expand...
Mexico vs Brazil. World Cup 2014. One of the greatest games out there. Score? 0-0. The objective for Mexico was to advance to the next round. Not to be annihilated by Brazil at their own home by trying to score. The tactic was to hold and invalidate Brazil's advances and then, if they made mistakes, counterattack. Brazil didn't make any defensive mistakes.

That's how you play a tournament. Knowing the context, the opposite team, their strengths, the other teams' chances in your same bracket, etc.That's futbol.
 
mlx said:
Mexico vs Brazil. World Cup 2014. One of the greatest games out there. Score? 0-0. The objective for Mexico was to advance to the next round. Not to be annihilated by Brazil at their own home by trying to score. The tactic was to hold and invalidate Brazil's advances and then, if they made mistakes, counterattack. Brazil didn't make any defensive mistakes.

That's how you play a tournament. Knowing the context, the opposite team, their strengths, the other teams' chances in your same bracket, etc.That's futbol.
Click to expand...

Brazil was trying to win, yes? Or did both teams just kick the ball back and forth?
 
I mean Ochoa after that game was compared to Gordan Banks, right? Mexico executed a defensive game plan to thwart the offensive threat of Brazil, like you say. Sure that's great fubol. But it is not analogous (IMO) to the situation we are talking about here, in which case Brazil and Mexico would have both advanced by Brazil choosing to lumber aimlessly around the pitch and Ochoa needing to be woken up to come off the field at the half. Ochoa's play in last year's CCL semifinal might be another interesting topic, albeit one leading in a different direction.
 
soccerchaffeur said:
Parents who talk to/criticize opposing players.
This is unacceptable. Sit down, Karen and put another cheeseburger in your fat face.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the Karen/cheeseburger image. Also, parents who trash talk junior refs on the sidelines because they think they can intimidate them. "I don't care if my grandkids play safe". Reffing is a great way for a kid to pick up good spending money. Asked my kid once how he felt when parents yelled at him when he was a ref. He said basically-they're only parents, you just ignore them. I have no doubt the double-entendre was intentional.
 
This 'complaint' is completely superficial, but does anyone else find the Capelli kits nasty? I already felt they ruined the Slammers kits last season, but seeing the Albion kits this past weekend confirmed it for me. They're ugly af. Must be paying some good coin to draw the clubs in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top