Totally agree with you with regard to the value of an education in the long run. Too many parents put too much focus on the soccer fantasy to the detriment of their child's future financial security.
ECNL. The C stands for Cartel
- Thread starter NorCalUSN
- Start date
Totally agree with you with regard to the value of an education in the long run. Too many parents put too much focus on the soccer fantasy to the detriment of their child's future financial security.
Disagree all you want, the USWNT will likely have a chance to win another World Cup in the next 2-3 cycles…I would not be surprised if they are very competitive in 2027 and reach the Quarters or Semi’s. 2023 was bad coaching, a bad roster, and plain arrogance.
They have a new coach who is not a muppet, and if they bring in new blood and get rid of the lifers, they will be very competitive.
Im not suggesting College Soccer is the same in any sense to a professional academy in the US or Europe, never said that, very little player development in college soccer IMHO. I said, we don’t have a talent and ability problem. Have some really great players in the College Ranks, young players signing pro contracts, more US Players playing overseas. It will make the US game better.
This last Women’s World Cup the English Leagues had 108 Women’s World Cup Participants, NWSL 61 (plus 22 other youth club and college players participating as well), and 69 players coming from Spanish Leagues.
35% of the rosters came from Leagues in 3 Countries. NWSL being one of them. It’s one of the top Women's League in the world, currently.
It’s better for everyone in the Women’s game when the game is elevated and the leagues internationally are better. Gives the US Women more options and will make them better.
whatithink
GOLD
Yes, an education is more important for the vast majority of college players, agree on that. If you think 4 years playing college is better than 4 years in a pro environment for developing talent for a NT, then you are sorely mistaken.
The development environments are basically like this
US, youth and college soccer with mediocre coaches in the main playing in generally mediocre games with talent widely dispersed generally. The best players are not being tested day in and day out in practice or in games develop to the next level
Pros, players from 16 up playing in a competitive environment against similarly skilled players in practice and games, coached by pros who are judged on results, same as the players.
A 21/22 year old after 4/5 years of a pro environment versus a similarly talented player starting out after 4/5 years of youth/college soccer will be better in practically every instance.
Ultimately the NT players are minuscule % of the talent pool, those are the true elite and the ones going into the pro environments in Europe (example). The same path doesn't yet exist here generally.
whatithink
GOLD
Frankly, its nothing short of complete arrogance and stupidity to say "Our best athletes in the US do not play soccer", as an excuse. Its what's fundamentally wrong with soccer in the US, i.e. athlete first and soccer second. I've heard multiple A level coaches say basically the same thing, i.e. I can teach them soccer ... when they pick the athletes.
Sure, Tyreek Hill can run really fast ... Can he do it with a ball at their feet, can he pass when doing it, can he cross, can he finish, can he view the field, can he zig zag and take players on .... you know, can he actually play soccer and not just run very fast? We'll never know, but just being able to run really fast does not mean that someone will be a NT player never mind a world class player.
Croatia has a population of < 4M. They constantly and consistently develop players and teams that can take on and compete against the best in the world. Its not a numbers game, its a coaching game. Brazil has a population of 210+M and soccer is religion ... they don't win every world cup because its not just a numbers game.
For reference, avg height of a GK in the EPL is just under 6'3". That's the richest league in the world with every player pretty much a NT player for some country or other.
You think our best athletes play soccer in the US? It’s not arrogance, it’s the truth.
If I asked you to pick the Top 10 Male Athletes in the US I doubt a Soccer Player would be uttered. That is my point.
Soccer First Countries, Top 10 is going to be mostly soccer players.
And…I’m not saying Super Tall for GK’s in the way to go. I am saying a freak athlete who is tall could make a good keeper. A Tyreek Hill, a Deion Sanders, these guys have such great body control and mechanics, I’m pretty sure they could have picked up soccer and been very good if they were immersed with it at a young age.
If there was real money in Soccer in the US, you would see our great athletes gravitate there.
whatithink
GOLD
Are you saying the best athletes play soccer in other countries? What I am saying is that you are falling into the trap of thinking that the best athletes would be the best soccer players - it doesn't follow. For sure, you have to be athletic, i.e. fit, to play soccer, but the pro development academies are not looking for athletes and then saying they can make them soccer players ... they are looking for soccer players, knowing they can make them athletic (enough).
When the US changes their mindset to that, then they will be on the right path - zero chance obv. with the current youth/college coaching setups though.
Dolphins Tyreek Hill says he could have been a famous soccer star
Miami Dolphins star wide receiver Tyreek Hill believes he could have been a star soccer player if he didn't focus solely on football starting in high school.
www.dailymail.co.uk
RandomSoccerFan
GOLD
Look, you posted something dumb and uninformed. For reference, here's what you posted:
When called on it, instead of backing down, you doubled down on the stupid. We both posted and I thought it was done, but then you posted again and included insults.
It doesn't matter that you posted something dumb and uninformed, it's what keeps internet forums going. What matters is that you both didn't stop, and expected other people to.
Of course there are going to be differing requirements by sport, activity, you name it. And the priorities for how to stand out in that sport are going to differ. Some are going to be standouts by spending 1000's of hours at it. Some are going to be standouts by spending far less. Some of that is due to body type, some of it isn't. But describing an entire sport as if some of its positions are unskilled, because your nephew plays on a high school team so you know what you're talking about - deserves to be called out and shamed.
It’s not a Zero Sum Game that the Best Athlete =‘s the Best Player in every sport.
There are tons of factors that go into making a player great at their sport. It’s a combination of things and athleticism is huge component.
Athleticism is coveted across the board in all sports, even soccer in Europe…speed, agility, how high you can jump, hand eye / foot eye coordination, spatial awareness, etc., etc. Those traits are coveted for players in soccer around the world.
Why do they have the NFL Combine for example…it’s an athleticism event. Athleticism matters a lot.
whatithink
GOLD
Must be true thenDolphins Tyreek Hill says he could have been a famous soccer star
Miami Dolphins star wide receiver Tyreek Hill believes he could have been a star soccer player if he didn't focus solely on football starting in high school.www.dailymail.co.uk
whatithink
GOLD
Yes it matters hugely for the NFL, above anything else for many positions ... as I said, you have to be athletic to play soccer. Glad we agree.
What insulting? I've already stated I have no intention of insulting anyone. I don't consider saying McDonalds is cheaper than Morton's an insult....hey call me crazy but I actually prefer the McDonalds. If you take offense, that's something way beyond my control and says way more about you than it does me. I also carved out several positions. You have any issue with "low skill"? O.k. how about if I tell you "lower skilled" would have been a better characterization? Satisfied? Or are you seriously going to sit there and defend and say linesmen are higher skilled on par with soccer???
p.s. might surprise you to know that up until all the political nonsense got swept up in it, I'm actually a bigger football fan than I am a soccer fan. Frankly, I think soccer as a game is a bit broken and football is far more suited to the American character. I enjoy friday night lights with the nephew far more than any surf cup with the kiddo. Just an opinion, but I think it's a better game.
Must be true then
If it is on the internet, must be true.
Also, never said US Soccer Players are not athletic. I said US Men’s Soccer is not comprised of the best athletes in our country.
Croatia, Brazil, etc. the countries you mentioned, soccer is the first choice sport for almost all kids. Success is also predicated on coaching, etc., which the US does not have the right person leading the ship. We are on pace for another mediocre finish…2nd Round, maybe the quarters at best. As I said, Triple G is not the guy. Maybe we can factor in some more childish over-involved youth like club parents in-fighting and some more domestic violence allegations, and shakedowns. Our National Team Leadership has been quite the joke.
Better than Italy, which has missed two cycles in a row and have a great soccer culture and one of the best leagues in the world.
Honduras beats our Mens National Team…I what world is that possible…we have players with the mental make up of Dest…cut that clown. I’m sure T&T and Honduras have rich and extensive development European like academies to draw talent from.
Why does the USMNT continue to struggle against these nations? Our lack of European style academies???
Here, many play early, but move on to FB, BBall, and Base Ball. Soccer is third choice at best, most likely fourth choice by many high end youth male athletes in the US. Again, our top athletic talent does not choose soccer regularly as their top choice. That is all I am saying. Which I think is a significant factor to the mediocrity in US Men’s Soccer.
RandomSoccerFan
GOLD
Do you actually not realize that saying something insulting or dumb, getting called on it, and then stating that is more on the reader than the poster - is insulting? It's the same as considering "I'm sorry that you feel that way" a valid apology. It's just as dumb.
Linesmen in the NFL are making 7 figures for understanding exactly what they need to do, and the hundreds of ways to do it, on every play. Linesmen on a high school football team are a different discussion, and will range from those that have been doing it for years and those that picked it up last week. It's not a demeaning statement to say that people come in to playing football later in life, as playing it as it is actually played as you get older here in the US requires bigger, more mature bodies than all pre-teens and many teens are going to have.
The insult to football players in general compared to soccer players stands on its own.
The hours thing by Gladwell and company is overplayed, and is already on the downswing. I've met him a few times, I've read him, and I'm telling you, you probably shouldn't be taking his ideas and quoting his thoughts very far - they won't age well. Even in the team you are probably most familiar with, whichever you would consider your son's primary soccer team - rank the players on that team from top to bottom, by whatever measure of goodness (except hours spent) that makes the most sense to you, whether impact to the team, goals scored, ball-handling, etc. Then rank them by number of hours spent per week that they spend bettering themselves, in group practice, individual training, and game time. Plot both of them. If hours spent trying to to get better (and continue to improve) was a reasonable metric to measure skill, you'd have a very close correlation between the two lines. But since it doesn't really work like that, there will probably be very little correlation. Some of the players are going to be awesome, and spend comparatively little time outside of practice, even if they make them all. Some of the players are going to eat/sleep/breath soccer 24/7 all week, and they still will rarely touch the pitch on game day. Many would call the first group the skilled ones and the second less skilled, unless skill is redefined to mean nothing but how many hours are applied on task.
I didn't think you'd double down on it and actually defend the position that "linesmen are a higher skilled position", but there you go. You are way off the range on that one. Even football itself distinguishes between what they call the skilled and nonskilled positions (their words not mine....see the attached wikipedia and corresponding citations). I'll give you this....you have cajones. As to Gladwell, it's a fair critique but I wouldn't go so far as you do...it's a razor, and it's utility is limited to a razor. But I also disagree with you re observations, besides my kiddos 3 teams currently, as well as the goalkeepers I've seen out on the community, there most definitely is a time/skill correlation...it's not 1 to 1, but it's there and it's a strong correlation.
Skill position - Wikipedia
RandomSoccerFan
GOLD
I didn't think you'd double down on it and actually defend the position that "linesmen are a higher skilled position", but there you go. You are way off the range on that one. Even football itself distinguishes between what they call the skilled and nonskilled positions (their words not mine....see the attached wikipedia and corresponding citations). I'll give you this....you have cajones. As to Gladwell, it's a fair critique but I wouldn't go so far as you do...it's a razor, and it's utility is limited to a razor. But I also disagree with you re observations, besides my kiddos 3 teams currently, as well as the goalkeepers I've seen out on the community, there most definitely is a time/skill correlation...it's not 1 to 1, but it's there and it's a strong correlation.
Skill position - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Nowhere in this link or any other will someone refer to the positions other than the listed skill positions as low-skill or un-skilled. And if they did - anyone who has ever been any good at those other positions would take issue with that description. Whether talking about the high-level label "This is a skill position", or separate but underlying meaning "This position takes skill to play", it would be wrong to assume the inverse. At the highest levels, every position on the field requires a tremendous amount of skill (along with athleticism, body type, luck, connections), because if it weren't present - they wouldn't be there very long.
You are stretching now. You know the label sets aside everything else that is not contained within it. That's just basic venn diagram stuff. It's possible there are other categories of stuff outside the circle, but there is nothing else within. Hence "skilled/non-skilled". One of the citations even uses the words "non-skilled" and the wikipedia article uses the words "by contrast".
So now we're on the highest levels? Even Gladwell concedes that not all subject matters are equivalent. Of course to get to expert requires more hours than amateur. The question, however, is a relative one, which is why I said it's fair to complain about my use of words from "low skilled" which is an objective measure v. "lower skilled" which is a relative one. I take your point on that, have reiterated that no insult was intended, and one of my failings has always been a lack of precision, given how quickly I'm moving...fine hold the "er" against me if you like. But you aren't seriously arguing it takes the same time and expertise for a linesman pro v. a soccer pro at the highest level of their respective sport??? That's the cajones part that you show because we (collectively) have laid out a whole bunch on our side: Ericsson/Gladwell, the wikipedia definition and cites, the Usain video, my own comparison of my son/nephew (who are similar in grade level and age), Mahe, but it's awfully short on yours. Clearly touched a nerve, so would help to know what in your own experiences is causing the reaction.
RandomSoccerFan
GOLD
It's really not that deep. You stated, with words, that most positions of football were low-skill. This remains an untrue statement that someone can either roll their eyes at or decide to call out. It takes no stretch to take that to mean that soccer is a high-skill sport, but football (for most positions) was low-skill.
Of course that was inflammatory, of course it was uninformed, and of course there might be some dumbass (i.e. me) who will call you out for it. The fact that someone can walk on to a high school team, or even a college team, for some positions if everything else was a fit - doesn't mean that the position that they turn out to be quite good at (hopefully) - doesn't require much skill. It just means that they inherently have the skill to perform well from the start, including the athleticism, body type, smarts, etc.
Reasonable people can disagree about how relevant or necessary the amount of hours put in to learning a certain position relates to how well one can perform in that position - but I don't see how they can disagree that the ultimate measure has nothing to do with hours, it's simply their performance on the field.
Of course that was inflammatory, of course it was uninformed, and of course there might be some dumbass (i.e. me) who will call you out for it. The fact that someone can walk on to a high school team, or even a college team, for some positions if everything else was a fit - doesn't mean that the position that they turn out to be quite good at (hopefully) - doesn't require much skill. It just means that they inherently have the skill to perform well from the start, including the athleticism, body type, smarts, etc.
Reasonable people can disagree about how relevant or necessary the amount of hours put in to learning a certain position relates to how well one can perform in that position - but I don't see how they can disagree that the ultimate measure has nothing to do with hours, it's simply their performance on the field.