Jamie Trecker has a new column up highlighting the recent U20 qualifying rounds for the U20 World Cup and comes to an unsurprising conclusion:
it’s pretty clear there is a big gap between what the Americans can do and what resources they have to work with. The USA racked up two big wins right enough – one each over Haiti and hosts Panama – but consistency still seems to elude this team.
Part of the problem is innate: in this age group, consistency is the hardest attribute to teach. One of the reasons it is so noticeable is because the level of competition the Americans usually face is so lousy.
Because, like the USMNT, the U20’s face other teams from CONCACAF. They face the same issues of weak competition that the USMNT do. People are concerned about the 0-0 draw with Guatemala, and rightly so. But any coach will tell you that sometimes against less skilled teams, your team will sit back and relax and get caught. That’s not exactly reassuring though. We can HOPE they were just taking a break, but what if they really were held in check by the likes of Guatemala, a team described as ‘below average’. But is that the only reason?
The main point here is that US Soccer faces similar difficulties at all levels of development. Our U17s and U20s need to start facing some real challenges beyond CONCACAF qualifying. Much has been said about how our youth development program needs improvement for our players to compete on the world stage. But there have been few concrete proposals, the last significant one being the MLS youth academies. Will that be enough? Is increased international competition the only problem? Will the USA U20’s be competitive in Canada or go home humbled like the USMNT? Jamie fears the latter:
The games I’ve seen (which are broadcast live on Fox Sports Espanol, FSC’s sister channel) make me wonder how the USA will possibly be able to compete this summer. The players below the equator have a sense of how the game is played at the top level, are excellent when it comes to positioning and delivery and, despite making the mistakes that kids make, are playing another game altogether than the Americans. Bluntly put, the USA in Panama looked like a group of suburban youth soccer players; the ten teams in Paraguay look like professionals.
And there you have it. I’ve heard over and over how we’re driving kids away from soccer because of competition. If we try to shield kids from competition until they’re 13, will the top players be ready to face the world’s best when they’re 16? Or is America’s fixation with competition stifling the development of our youngest players? I wish I had the answer, but I can’t shake the fear that this overwhelming shift in the US towards non-competitive soccer is shifting too far to try and address bad parents and coaches. Instead of a happy medium of competition and development, I fear we may end up turning out a generation of young players who have better skills, but no ability to handle the pressures of higher level play. That combined with the inherent difficulties of being in CONCACAF make me very nervous indeed.
Loading...
January 24th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
If I may be so kind to put in my opinion – good, bad or ugly…
I watched all the U.S. U-20 matches in Panama. Yes, they looked shaky against Guatemala but nothing to be too concerned about. Jamie Trekker gets paid to write – and when there’s not enough about soccer in the U.S. to write – then I feel many of these folks sit back and just think up something to complain about. That’s the easy thing to do.
If he “ran the numbers†in comprehensive statistical software (like SPSS) it would be easy to see correlations regarding different confederation and team results within major competitions, as well as how the U.S. stands up in the resulting data. I do not think it would be that bleak for the U.S.
Unfortunately, I don’t get paid to write (like Mr. Trekker) – otherwise I would be happy to run those numbers. Until then, I have a dissertation to complete within the next few months. My feeling is if more people, who write dribble concerning U.S. Soccer, had the knowledge to conduct independent research – they would find the results both interesting and something to base their case on. It does not take a rocket scientist to run SPSS – just someone willing to put in the hard work. Mr. Trekker takes the easy way out (as I mentioned) – like someone you would expect who received their degree from a diploma mill.
Do I sound that pissed off? OK – so I am a bit perturbed at Mr. Trekker’s article but I am sure he would appreciate the feedback 🙂
Regardless, the U.S. U-20s should do fine in Canada and I am not particularly worried.
January 24th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
You wouldn’t be the only one hammering Trecker for something! He gets regularly abused and, well, I know I often disagree with him much more than I agree. But I still think there is a kernel of truth to the fact that the U20s face the same CONCACAF dilemma the USMNT does. We’ll see what happens in Canada! I sure hope he’s wrong.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Actually, SD, you’re coming away with the wrong impression on this one. Do I feel that suburban youth soccer prepares players for professional or international play? No, and based on the evidence to date, I’m right. What bothers me about the U-20s is NOT youth soccer; these kids are all pros, and most trained at IMG Bradenton or with MLS teams. What bothers me is that the training they have received clearly ain’t doing the trick.
I’ve noticed in some other posts that you tend to conflate my opinion of youth soccer as training for a pro career with youth soccer in general. The two are completely different. I have no beef at all for kids playing for fun, and I actually agree with you w/r/t shielding kids from competition. Both of us know that the actual percentage of kids who will go on to the pros is very small, and the fact is all athletic programs (I think college basketball and football are particularly criminal when it comes to this) do need to do a better job of prepping kids for success in the classroom and in life as opposed to taking a slim shot at a pro career.
However: IMG IS a prep academy for pros. So is “Project 40.†Neither of these seem to be getting the job done, thus the comparison to a “suburban youth soccer†environment, which I see as inherently non-competitive.
As for the guy who hopes that a statistical analysis would give better results for the USA, I’m forced to point out that the USA has won exactly ZERO World Cups. That’s the stat that counts in this game. All the other stuff is nice… and meaningless.
Thanks for writing about my writing.
January 26th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Jamie,
I probably should have been clearer in my post. I wasn’t really talking about rec level soccer or entry level travel where fun is the key. The key is that ‘youth soccer’ in America at all levels above recreation IS part of our national ‘farm system’ if you will for the USMNT and beyond. From Select soccer to ODP, to Bradenton. When you look at the timeframe from kids starting to play travel soccer (10), to starting ODP (12), to Bradenton (17), skills development is a part of that. I’m not advocating turning travel teams into combines for grinding out top level players. But the point is they are ALL part of the system and you can’t suddenly ‘turn on the training’ at 14 or 15 and expect results.
You note that Project 40 and Bradeton are broken. So is ODP. But there also are issues with how kids are handled when they are learning their skills. upper level youth soccer where budding stars are getting early training have to be better suited to a) teaching them solid core skills while b) not shielding them SO much from competition that they fold later on. I don’t think we’re at that place yet. The best coaches in that world at IMG can’t produce a top player who can’t dribble with his left foot reliably. I’ve had many a discussion with our top travel team coaches in our league about how we need to focus on the abilities of our U5/U6 coaches in terms of just helping them know how to teach the kids some basic skills and that currently too many kids are showing up in U10/U12 travel teams lacking simple core skills they should have learned.
As for the educational aspect – absolutely. It’s interesting that few select programs stipulate a minimum GPA for kids to play. Anyone suggesting this would likely be shot. People often talk about the European academies and how education is supposed to be a key part of it. In talking with some coaches from the UK, that part is often ignored and kids cut from the program find themselves SOL. That’s why I find complaints about the NCAA troubling in that we shouldn’t be trying to bypass college for the top players. We should be figuring out how to make college experience more useful in development so the kids have that education. I agree with you 100% there.