World Cup Final: USA vs Japan

[nyc-cowboy]

This is it, for all the marbles.

The US team should be rested this time, last game you can tell they were tired.

They got to exploit the height advantage and pressure Japan early and don't let them control the midfield.

One big advantage is that we have the best female goalkeeper in the world.

Good Luck girls!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Phoenix]

Let's go girls! Almost time!

[kmp77]

Mmmmmmmmm...Alex :)~~

http://thebiglead.fantasysportsven.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/alex-morgan.png

[Romo 2 Austin]

Screw soccer.

[nyc-cowboy]

Girls looking good - what a diff a day of rest makes

[kmp77]

How many chances are you going to waste....sheesh.

[nyc-cowboy]

How many chances are you going to waste....sheesh.

Yeah, wayyyyy too many wasted chances.

[casmith07]

They aren't wasted chances - we have 8 shots on goal in 20 minutes.

They'll start to fall. We just need more set pieces. And some of our girls need to cross that thing in the box and stop trying to score from a zero angle.

[kmp77]

Another missed chance...wth....:bang2: :bang2:

[nyc-cowboy]

Wow what a shot - we got to score soon, can't let japan hang around.

[nyc-cowboy]

They aren't wasted chances - we have 8 shots on goal in 20 minutes.

They'll start to fall. We just need more set pieces. And some of our girls need to cross that thing in the box and stop trying to score from a zero angle.

See that beak-away by Japan - thats why we can't waste chances. All it takes is one counterattack by Japan and we could be down a goal.

[nyc-cowboy]

WOW we just can't buy a goal.

[casmith07]

See that beak-away by Japan - thats why we can't waste chances. All it takes is one counterattack by Japan and we could be down a goal.

That is true. We could be up 3-0.

[jimmy40]

wasted chance after wasted chance after wasted chance.

[nyc-cowboy]

That is true. We could be up 3-0.

Yes def - this isn't good, Japan is starting to gain confidence, just like in our Football - can't let a team hang around - we've got to put them away.

[nyc-cowboy]

This is starting to get scary - it might be one of those games.

[MC KAos]

The longer they go without getting a goal the more confident Japan gets, and they score on a high percentage of chances so one bad pass and we could lose the world cup

[BlueStar3398]

Some of those shots have got to start going in!

[nyc-cowboy]

The longer they go without getting a goal the more confident Japan gets, and they score on a high percentage of chances so one bad pass and we could lose the world cup

Exactly - Japan is just looking for that counter attack.

[kmp77]

GOOOOALLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!! Nice long ball and nice finish!!

[kmp77]

Mmmmmmmmm...Alex :)~~

http://thebiglead.fantasysportsven.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/alex-morgan.png

Am I prophetic?

[nyc-cowboy]

Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

[nyc-cowboy]

What a MORONIC goal - that was some HORRIBLE D play - all they had to do was get the ball out strong but they tried to be too cute.

STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kmp77]

Gooooalllllllllllllllll!!!!

http://www.uq.edu.au/research/images/rr2005/wombat-ways.jpg

[nyc-cowboy]

Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooollllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllll

[nyc-cowboy]

Now they just got to get all the ball out STRONG - no playing around with the ball in our defensive zone.

[gmoney112]

tied up

[dback]

Dang it!!! Japan ties it up.

[nyc-cowboy]

This is just unreal - that was a tactical mistake - you have to put a player close to the player taking the corner.

[nyc-cowboy]

This just sucks - STUPID and unlucky

[jimmy40]

US lost their edge when Solo layed on the ground acting hurt.

[tyke1doe]

Japan just remained patient, calm, steady, and that's why their team is the winner.

Great object lesson.

[nyc-cowboy]

We lost it when we didn't convert on all those chances, thats the bottom line, we let them hang around.

Then to miss 3 PKs in a row - ***.

[CATCH17]

I think I'm gonna barf.

[peplaw06]

I'm speechless.

[UnoDallas]

I'm speechless.


doubtful

[peplaw06]

Is UnoDallas' IQ above 60?

doubtful

......

[MC KAos]

That really sucked, I'm sure if Morgan doesn't get fouled at the end of overtime she scores and we win! Missed opportunities reallly killed us

[diehard2294]

too many wasted oppurtunities... I am sick to my stomach

[peplaw06]

That really sucked, I'm sure if Morgan doesn't get fouled at the end of overtime she scores and we win! Missed opportunities reallly killed usWhy didn't we get a corner after that free kick? I thought it was pretty clear Bright's chance went off two Japanese defenders.

[MC KAos]

Why didn't we get a corner after that free kick? I thought it was pretty clear Bright's chance went off two Japanese defenders.

Me too, it was a bad call

[Heisenberg]

Japan probably deserved this after their really really crappy year.

[Cythim]

Wow, what a game. The US doesn't play pretty but it seems like they were able to create chances just about any time they had possession. With 31 shot attempts you would think we'd win, but even on PKs we just couldn't find the back of the net. Kudos to Japan for staying strong through the barrage of U.S. shots and doing well to finish their chances.

I didn't enjoy listening to Julie pretend that we were playing possession soccer. We played pass-pass-punt in the true American style.

[ThreeSportStar80]

Biggest choke job in USA women sports history...

[Cythim]

Biggest choke job in USA women sports history...

There have probably been bigger chokes. This American team really wasn't that good and many thought they wouldn't make the final.

[Biggems]

so the announcers said Rodriguez scores everytime we play Japan, and yet we dont start her?

Also, why take out Rapinoe?

We should have had Wambach, Rapinoe, Rodriguez, Morgan, and Cheney should have been kicking our penalty shots.

[MC KAos]

so the announcers said Rodriguez scores everytime we play Japan, and yet we dont start her?

Also, why take out Rapinoe?

We should have had Wambach, Rapinoe, Rodriguez, Morgan, and Cheney should have been kicking our penalty shots.

Rapinoe was starting to get sloppy I think it was a good call to take her out. I think the big mistake was not putting Abby to take the first PK, the most nerve recking one is that first one. I believe your best PK taker should shoot first or fourth, with your second best taking the opposite

[Cythim]

I think Rapinoe should have subbed in off the bench like she had been all tournament. The cheers to start her were cute but she provides a great change of pace by coming in during the second half.

[tyke1doe]

so the announcers said Rodriguez scores everytime we play Japan, and yet we dont start her?


I thought that was odd too.

[tyke1doe]

There have probably been bigger chokes. This American team really wasn't that good and many thought they wouldn't make the final.

Japan was more of a longshot than the USA team.

[peplaw06]

so the announcers said Rodriguez scores everytime we play Japan, and yet we dont start her?

Also, why take out Rapinoe?

We should have had Wambach, Rapinoe, Rodriguez, Morgan, and Cheney should have been kicking our penalty shots.I was thinking I wish Rapinoe had been in for PKs too. I'm assuming Morgan would have taken the 5th. Cheney was injured.

Rapinoe was starting to get sloppy I think it was a good call to take her out. I think the big mistake was not putting Abby to take the first PK, the most nerve recking one is that first one. I believe your best PK taker should shoot first or fourth, with your second best taking the oppositeI think Rapinoe looked gassed when she was running for one of those long passes down the sideline.

I think Rapinoe should have subbed in off the bench like she had been all tournament. The cheers to start her were cute but she provides a great change of pace by coming in during the second half.I thought Rapinoe played great until she got tired. She really seemed to be the only one who was putting threatening crosses out there consistently this tournament. And she set up Morgan with the great long pass.

[Cythim]

Japan was more of a longshot than the USA team.

Japan was ranked 4th in the world headed into the tournament and knocked off Germany, the favorite to win it all. Japan wasn't a favorite to win but they weren't a Cinderella either.

[Cythim]

I was thinking I wish Rapinoe had been in for PKs too. I'm assuming Morgan would have taken the 5th. Cheney was injured.

I think Rapinoe looked gassed when she was running for one of those long passes down the sideline.

I thought Rapinoe played great until she got tired. She really seemed to be the only one who was putting threatening crosses out there consistently this tournament. And she set up Morgan with the great long pass.

She was used to coming in and playing all-out until the final whistle and that is why she got gassed. I'm not going to argue that she wasn't one of the highlights on the field for USA, but she was doing great in her role as the first player off the bench and it may have helped us to have her playing that role again in this one.

[JustDezIt]

all i know is

this chick is fine and doesnt get mentioned nearly enough.

http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/media/15721/02082010HP_912FFC%5B1%5D.jpg

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/3230/57526607.jpg

http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/6426/ak2w.png

[CATCH17]

so the announcers said Rodriguez scores everytime we play Japan, and yet we dont start her?

Also, why take out Rapinoe?

We should have had Wambach, Rapinoe, Rodriguez, Morgan, and Cheney should have been kicking our penalty shots.


We didn't really lose for any of these reasons.

We just lost because we had a couple of let downs.

USA dominated the match so I think the coach hit all the right buttons.

[joseephuss]

so the announcers said Rodriguez scores everytime we play Japan, and yet we dont start her?

Also, why take out Rapinoe?

We should have had Wambach, Rapinoe, Rodriguez, Morgan, and Cheney should have been kicking our penalty shots.

Rodriguez had a bad tournament. She didn't look good the majority of the time I watched her play. She didn't create anything, she constantly lost the ball easily and just was not a force. Her not starting or playing did not hurt the U.S.'s chances of winning.

[Doomsday101]

What a heart breaker. They outplayed Japan all day long and had their chances but just could not seal the deal.

[Temo]

There have probably been bigger chokes. This American team really wasn't that good and many thought they wouldn't make the final.

Hell, Brazil choked even more in the Copa America game that was on at the same time.

[Yeagermeister]

Ok stupid question of the day: If we can field a womans soccer team that is good enough to make to the World Cup finals why can't we do the same with the mens team? I know the competition is much strong on the mens side but surely we should be able to field a better team.

[CATCH17]

Ok stupid question of the day: If we can field a womans soccer team that is good enough to make to the World Cup finals why can't we do the same with the mens team? I know the competition is much strong on the mens side but surely we should be able to field a better team.


Because of the NFL.


All of our potential great soccer stars are playing in the NFL.


Soccer is one of the big 5 sports for girls.

For guys its on down the list.

[Cythim]

Ok stupid question of the day: If we can field a womans soccer team that is good enough to make to the World Cup finals why can't we do the same with the mens team? I know the competition is much strong on the mens side but surely we should be able to field a better team.

You can likely thank Title IX for that. We have a deep college system to develop talent while other nations rely on clubs that struggle to generate revenue.

[Cythim]

Because of the NFL.


All of our potential great soccer stars are playing in the NFL.


Soccer is one of the big 5 sports for girls.

For guys its on down the list.

False. Messi, Xavi, and many of the greatest soccer players around the world do not fit the profile for any standard American sport. Our men's team sucks because we look for NFL and NBA athletes instead of quality soccer players who have technique and a deep understanding of the game. We also pigeonhole players into set roles at an early age so they do not develop a complete understanding of the game.

[MC KAos]

False. Messi, Xavi, and many of the greatest soccer players around the world do not fit the profile for any standard American sport. Our men's team sucks because we look for NFL and NBA athletes instead of quality soccer players who have technique and a deep understanding of the game. We also pigeonhole players into set roles at an early age so they do not develop a complete understanding of the game.

I agree, Uruguay has a great team full of world class players and their country has 3 million people. It's because of cheapness and bad management that we suck.

[Stautner]

I have to agree with others - I think in men's sports the better athletes often tend to focus more on football/basketball/baseball first, either out of doing the more accepteable thing among their peers, or because that is the direction they were steered toward by parents and others from an early age - although that culture should be changing as more and more parents will have grown up in an era where soccer is a bigger, more accepted sport, and therefore a sport that will be passed down from generation to generation in the United States the way others have. People have to remember that in the United States soccer had some catching up to do.

I don't think that same affect occurs with womens sports. First, ALL womens sports had catching up to do, so soccer didn't start out as for down the list that it did with men's sports. The evolution of soccer in the US was much closer in sync with the evolution of women's sports in general. Second, other women's sports just didn't have the same kind of dominance in culture that football/basketball/baseball had on the men's side, so soccer didn't have the same huge disadvantage in competing for athletes.

A THOUGHT ABOUT THE GAME:

I had never watched an entire soccer game in my life other than ones my very young kids played in. I watched this one, and was glued to the TV the entire match. Games like this, and the conversion of (or eventual death of) hard headed old farts like me who never gave soccer a chance will help change sports culture in the US so that kids (males in particular) will be more likely to choose soccer as a primary sport at an early age with their parents blessing.

[joseephuss]

Ok stupid question of the day: If we can field a womans soccer team that is good enough to make to the World Cup finals why can't we do the same with the mens team? I know the competition is much strong on the mens side but surely we should be able to field a better team.

Same sport, different scenarios. Really can't compare the two.

For the men, soccer has to compete and mostly lose to football, basketball and baseball. For the women, soccer is pretty much the top sport. That makes a difference in the quality of the athlete and player that develops and makes it to the national team.

Competition makes a huge difference. On the men's side, the U.S. is climbing an uphill battle to catch the other countries that treat soccer as a cult of some sort and have been playing for a much longer time. The women don't have to deal with that. The U.S. pretty much started on an even step with every other country if not higher in developing women's soccer. Some counties didn't even allow women to play soccer in the recent past much less have a national team.

[Doomsday101]

Same sport, different scenarios. Really can't compare the two.

For the men, soccer has to compete and mostly lose to football, basketball and baseball. For the women, soccer is pretty much the top sport. That makes a difference in the quality of the athlete and player that develops and makes it to the national team.

Competition makes a huge difference. On the men's side, the U.S. is climbing an uphill battle to catch the other countries that treat soccer as a cult of some sort and have been playing for a much longer time. The women don't have to deal with that. The U.S. pretty much started on an even step with every other country if not higher in developing women's soccer. Some counties didn't even allow women to play soccer in the recent past much less have a national team.

I fully agree with this. Women sports are somewhat limited compared to men’s sports and with so many different sports available to men the quality of athletes are spread throughout the various sports in the US.

Heck the biggest star in Pro soccer in the US is not even from the USA David Beckham

[joseephuss]

I fully agree with this. Women sports are somewhat limited compared to men’s sports and with so many different sports available to men the quality of athletes are spread throughout the various sports in the US.

Heck the biggest star in Pro soccer in the US is not even from the USA David Beckham

That is is somewhat true. Of course Beckham has always been one of the most popular players/biggest stars even if he wasn't the best on the field.

[Stautner]

I fully agree with this. Women sports are somewhat limited compared to men’s sports and with so many different sports available to men the quality of athletes are spread throughout the various sports in the US.

Heck the biggest star in Pro soccer in the US is not even from the USA David Beckham

I think this is true, but I still think things will shift some over time. There are still a lot of parents that didn't grow up with soccer and don't steer their kids in that direction, and there are still a lot of places in the country where football/basketball/baseball and even hockey are the top dogs, with soccer being more of a secondary sport that many of the top male athletes neglect in faovr of the others. But soccer is getting more and more national attention, and many young parents today have grown up with soccer being a more prominant sport, and I think the culture in the US will keep evolving where soccer will be able to compete for better athletes.

[Doomsday101]

That is is somewhat true. Of course Beckham has always been one of the most popular players/biggest stars even if he wasn't the best on the field.

Looking at MLS teams there are many non US born players not just Beckham. I think the US has made strides in the sport but it is still not to the level of South America or Europe and frankly I'm not sure if it ever will be at that level. I just don’t see many Americans as passionate with Soccer as I do with people from other countries.

[Doomsday101]

I think this is true, but I still think things will shift some over time. There are still a lot of parents that didn't grow up with soccer and don't steer their kids in that direction, and there are still a lot of places in the country where football/basketball/baseball and even hockey are the top dogs, with soccer being more of a secondary sport that many of the top male athletes neglect in faovr of the others. But soccer is getting more and more national attention, and many young parents today have grown up with soccer being a more prominant sport, and I think the culture in the US will keep evolving where soccer will be able to compete for better athletes.

Well I don't see American football fading away or American Basketball. I do think we will improve as a nation in soccer but I'm not sure we will see the same fanatical passion as we see in many other countries for the sport.

[Stautner]

Well I don't see American football fading away or American Basketball. I do think we will improve as a nation in soccer but I'm not sure we will see the same fanatical passion as we see in many other countries for the sport.

I agree with this. I'm not saying soccer will ever overtake football/baseball and basketball in the U.S., but I am saying that I believe it will become more and more acceptible for better athletes to play, and that as time goes on it will attract more quality athletes to play than in the past. That's already happened to a degree, and it's unmistakable that soccer is dramatically bigger than 15-20 years ago. Soccer was almost non-existent in youth sports when i was a kid.

[joseephuss]

Looking at MLS teams there are many non US born players not just Beckham. I think the US has made strides in the sport but it is still not to the level of South America or Europe and frankly I'm not sure if it ever will be at that level. I just don’t see many Americans as passionate with Soccer as I do with people from other countries.

The MLS is just too far behind to overcome the other premier soccer leagues in the world. It is also too far behind to overtake the NFL, the NBA and MLB. The NFL is still growing in popularity. I don't think anyone who gets involved in the MLS as a player, coach or owner or anything else has any false hopes about what the league is or will be in 10 or 15 years. They know it is what it is.

If your goal is to be one of the best, then you aren't going to want to spend too much time playing in the MLS. You want to make it to the premier leagues over seas. Just like minor league baseball players want to make it to the majors. Or basketball players playing in the leagues in Greece or Spain want to make it to the NBA. I don't think there is anything wrong with being a stepping stone league.

[Stautner]

The MLS is just too far behind to overcome the other premier soccer leagues in the world. It is also too far behind to overtake the NFL, the NBA and MLB. The NFL is still growing in popularity. I don't think anyone who gets involved in the MLS as a player, coach or owner or anything else has any false hopes about what the league is or will be in 10 or 15 years. They know it is what it is.

If your goal is to be one of the best, then you aren't going to want to spend too much time playing in the MLS. You want to make it to the premier leagues over seas. Just like minor league baseball players want to make it to the majors. Or basketball players playing in the leagues in Greece or Spain want to make it to the NBA. I don't think there is anything wrong with being a stepping stone league.

Obviously as a whole soccer here will never be what it is in some countries because for some countires it is and has been for many years the primary sport and a national passion. The United States already has other sports filling those roles, but soccer is on the rise, and given the resources that are thrown at youth athletics in the United States I believe we will see US teams that are more competative internationally the more time goes on.

[joseephuss]

Obviously as a whole soccer here will never be what it is in some countries because for some countires it is and has been for many years the primary sport and a national passion. The United States already has other sports filling those roles, but soccer is on the rise, and given the resources that are thrown at youth athletics in the United States I believe we will see US teams that are more competative internationally the more time goes on.

I agree that you can have individual U.S. players and the U.S. national team grow to be more competitive internationally as time goes on. I think the MLS growing to the point of being competitive to other leagues around the world is a different beast. Individuals and a single team are on a much smaller scale than an entire league.

[Bizwah]

I agree that most of our better athletes go into the big three sports.

It's that way where I live. Early on, most kids start playing soccer.....but by the time they reach third grade, the better athletes have gone into football.

From Kindergarten through Second grade, my son's team didn't even have a goal scored on them in soccer. But last year, nearly all of the kids on his team (including my son) made the move to football instead.

Only a handful of kids from that team stayed with soccer.

[Doomsday101]

H_YU2EcgE3A

If you want Americans to take the game more seriously then they need to get rid of this image.

[joseephuss]

H_YU2EcgE3A

If you want Americans to take the game more seriously then they need to get rid of this image.

Unfortunately that will not go away. I wish it would. To a much lesser extent you are seeing an increase in these types of antics in the NBA and the NFL. I hope it doesn't continue to grow in those sports.

[Doomsday101]

Unfortunately that will not go away. I wish it would. To a much lesser extent you are seeing an increase in these types of antics in the NBA and the NFL. I hope it doesn't continue to grow in those sports.

You not go to be around in the NFL faking injuries all the time. Sorry but watching the few soccer games I have seen it is a joke they way these guys flop around it seems to be a part of the game. I was surprised to see the women acting more like professionals than the men soccer players

[CATCH17]

False. Messi, Xavi, and many of the greatest soccer players around the world do not fit the profile for any standard American sport. Our men's team sucks because we look for NFL and NBA athletes instead of quality soccer players who have technique and a deep understanding of the game. We also pigeonhole players into set roles at an early age so they do not develop a complete understanding of the game.

If Messi and Xavi were born American they would be lucky to even have played Soccer.

They wouldve tried to play the popular American sports and failed because of their natural genetics most likely.

[Stautner]

I agree that most of our better athletes go into the big three sports.

It's that way where I live. Early on, most kids start playing soccer.....but by the time they reach third grade, the better athletes have gone into football.

From Kindergarten through Second grade, my son's team didn't even have a goal scored on them in soccer. But last year, nearly all of the kids on his team (including my son) made the move to football instead.

Only a handful of kids from that team stayed with soccer.

It's going to be a slow process, but look at one simple point in your post - that early on kids start playing soccer. a generation ago that wasn't the case. Even when it became more common for kids in some areas to start out with soccer, it was viewed as an easy early acdtivity (not a lot of rules to learn) until they got older and could play other things. None of the better athletes played soccer as they got older, and often they simply couldn't because High Schools in many parts of the country didn't have soccer teams. Now at least ocassionally a few kids that are quality athletes stick with soccer as they get older - still easily a minority, but a few here and there. Soccer clubs are now big, with kids travelling around the state and country to play. Some good athletes will get locked into that early on, and when they do they wont have time to get very active in other sports. It will grow from there - maybe not at aa great speed, but it will grow.

[peplaw06]

A THOUGHT ABOUT THE GAME:

I had never watched an entire soccer game in my life other than ones my very young kids played in. I watched this one, and was glued to the TV the entire match. Games like this, and the conversion of (or eventual death of) hard headed old farts like me who never gave soccer a chance will help change sports culture in the US so that kids (males in particular) will be more likely to choose soccer as a primary sport at an early age with their parents blessing.:bravo:

Now you just gotta convert Hos... good luck. :D

[MC KAos]

Guys, other sports have NOTHING to do with our soccer team. We have over 300 million people in our country! It's all about our soccer heads hiring safe coaches like Bradley because if they fail and get fired, we don't have to lose much money on a contract settlement. We need a smarter association that can talk guys into playing for us instead of Italy or other countries their parents were born in or whatever the case may be like Rossi. We also need a coach that knows what they are doing, not one from the MLS or NCAA, that's a joke. They should have hired klinsmann after the world cup but they are too cheap and kept Bradley instead.

Point is, we have plenty of people here to suit a good team, we just need better development and coaching.

[Stautner]

:bravo:

Now you just gotta convert Hos... good luck. :D

Well, I hate to even call myself a convert. I certainly don't expect to be watching soccer regularly, but I probably will at least watch it during the Olympics and World Cup, which is a step up for me.

Guys, other sports have NOTHING to do with our soccer team. We have over 300 million people in our country! It's all about our soccer heads hiring safe coaches like Bradley because if they fail and get fired, we don't have to lose much money on a contract settlement. We need a smarter association that can talk guys into playing for us instead of Italy or other countries their parents were born in or whatever the case may be like Rossi. We also need a coach that knows what they are doing, not one from the MLS or NCAA, that's a joke. They should have hired klinsmann after the world cup but they are too cheap and kept Bradley instead.

Point is, we have plenty of people here to suit a good team, we just need better development and coaching.

It's ridiculous to suggest that other sports have nothing to do with our soccer team. Anything that draws top athletes away from soccer has something to do with it. Hell, other sports have something to do with the talent pool available ofr baseball or basketball or hockey too, but that is probably much more the case with soccer since soccer is so much less established as an American sport.

Of course we have plenty of people, but that only matters if plenty of those people focus on soccer. It's not the number of available athletes that is the problem, it's getting the available athletes divided up among the sports in a manner that all sports get their fair share. You have to remember that decisions on what sport to play are generally made peretty early on, and though there might still be a very fine pool of athletes available even aside from the ones that end up playing football, baseball and basketball, many of those remaining athletes banked their athletic careers on football, baseball or basketball, so they were never even in the pool of those available for soccer.

I can give you the personal experience from my town - I grew up here and raised my own kids here. When I was a kid, there was no organized soccer. Accordingly, the parents of my generation raised their kids on football, basketball and baseball, so while there may have been plenty of good athletes to play those 3 sports and soccer as well, the good athletes just weren't being pointed in that direction. Moving forward to my kids generation, by the time my oldest was 5 years old, soccer had become big in youth sports, although it still hadn't become a high school sport. Kids were not growing up dreaming of being high school soccer players because there was no groundwork for it. I can only think of 1 kid out of my son's age group iin the entire city that was both among the better athletes and ended up focusing on soccer as he got older. Only one - every other of the better athletes from that age group in the city migrated toward football, baseball or basketball. Again, sure there were enough good athletes to go around to fill a soccer team with the better athletes, but what good does that do if they aren't playing soccer?

[Cythim]

You don't need an athlete to play soccer. Does Messi look like an athlete? Does Xavi? They are not the better athletes from their age groups but they both have developed a brilliant technique and mind to play soccer. If America's best athletes played soccer we would look like England instead of America, and what are they doing in the World Cup? Since winning in '66 they have only finished in the top 4 once and they have never won the Euro Championship.

[Bigdog]

:bravo:

Now you just gotta convert Hos... good luck. :D


Hos was secretly watching the final of the world cup. He gets up early every Saturday morning to watch the Premiership on ESPN with his cup of coffee.:lmao2:

I don't even know if God could convert Hos into liken soccer. Maybe Garrett could.

[joseephuss]

You don't need an athlete to play soccer. Does Messi look like an athlete? Does Xavi? They are not the better athletes from their age groups but they both have developed a brilliant technique and mind to play soccer. If America's best athletes played soccer we would look like England instead of America, and what are they doing in the World Cup? Since winning in '66 they have only finished in the top 4 once and they have never won the Euro Championship.

You don't need athlete's, but it helps. If you just improved the athleticism of the U.S. men's team you would have a better team; however, that is only one part of the equation. You also have to improve the technical aspects of the players and the team.

[joseephuss]

Guys, other sports have NOTHING to do with our soccer team. We have over 300 million people in our country! It's all about our soccer heads hiring safe coaches like Bradley because if they fail and get fired, we don't have to lose much money on a contract settlement. We need a smarter association that can talk guys into playing for us instead of Italy or other countries their parents were born in or whatever the case may be like Rossi. We also need a coach that knows what they are doing, not one from the MLS or NCAA, that's a joke. They should have hired klinsmann after the world cup but they are too cheap and kept Bradley instead.

Point is, we have plenty of people here to suit a good team, we just need better development and coaching.

I don't like Bradley as a coach, but the development of players does not start with him. Development goes far beyond who is coaching the men's national team.

[daschoo]

You don't need an athlete to play soccer. Does Messi look like an athlete? Does Xavi? They are not the better athletes from their age groups but they both have developed a brilliant technique and mind to play soccer. If America's best athletes played soccer we would look like England instead of America, and what are they doing in the World Cup? Since winning in '66 they have only finished in the top 4 once and they have never won the Euro Championship.

yes.
does a defensive end or a left tackle look like an athlete? does a middle distance runner? different skill sets need different body types and abilities, just because they don't have the body to play wide receiver doesn't mean they're not athletes. try playing a pass, then run for twenty minutes - sprint for 60 yards and try making the same pass. factor in guys trying to get the ball off you and then decide whether or not you need to be an athlete to be a player.

[CATCH17]

At least ESPN has been showing much more soccer lately than normal so they are helping do their part.


I can't believe how amazing the sport is and somehow it has not caught on here throughout time.

[Doomsday101]

At least ESPN has been showing much more soccer lately than normal so they are helping do their part.


I can't believe how amazing the sport is and somehow it has not caught on here throughout time.

Outside of world cup many are not interested in the sport.

[MC KAos]

another big problem with the MLS is that they think they have to compete with the nfl, nba and whatever other league is here, thats the wrong mentality. they are competing with other soccer leagues, not other sports, therefore they should have their season from september through may like the rest of the world. otherwise all we will ever get is washed up players like henry. if the MLS ever hopes to be a top league in the world, or at least second tier they need to change the season

[MC KAos]

I don't like Bradley as a coach, but the development of players does not start with him. Development goes far beyond who is coaching the men's national team.

and thats a big problem, coaches are usually at least somewhat involved in the developing of young talent and keeping players that could play for multiple countries. Klinsmann has a whole group (business) devoted to the development of clubs from the ground up, starting with youth programs. if someone like that were to become the head coach you would start seeing young talent develop much like mexico has in the last 6 years. and they are starting to see the rewards of it.

[Stautner]

You don't need an athlete to play soccer. Does Messi look like an athlete? Does Xavi? They are not the better athletes from their age groups but they both have developed a brilliant technique and mind to play soccer. If America's best athletes played soccer we would look like England instead of America, and what are they doing in the World Cup? Since winning in '66 they have only finished in the top 4 once and they have never won the Euro Championship.

This is one of the oddest statements I've ever heard. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that better athletes aren't important when competing in an athletic competition. Athletic competitiions require athletic skills.

Of course it's true that lesser athletes can increase their ability to compete by learning technique and learning all the ins and outs of the game, and that sometimes a person can become a top player without having elite athleticism, but that doesn't change the fact that the better the athlete that is learning the techniques and the ins an outs of the game, the better the player. It absolutely makes a difference if a player can run faster, switch directions more quickly, jump higher attempting to head the ball, out manuever the opponent and has the natural dexterity to handle the ball - if the athlete has superior athletic ability AND learns the techniques and the ins and outs of the game, that's going to be the better player.

An example from another sport might be John Stockton and Michael Jordan - both top notch NBA players. Both had great instincts for the game, had a great understanding of the game, learned the techniques and tools of the game, and of the two Stockton may well have been superior in all those areas - but Jordon had elite athletic ability and Stockton did not, therefore Jordon was clearly the better player.

The reality is that there are several elements to being a great athlete in any sport - obiously learning the techniques and learning the ins and outs of the game is one element, being dedicated is another, and athletic ability is another. The better a player is in all those areas the better player he will be. The first two elements can be learned or practiced if a person will put in the time and effort, but the 3rd is something a person either has or does not have.

[joseephuss]

another big problem with the MLS is that they think they have to compete with the nfl, nba and whatever other league is here, thats the wrong mentality. they are competing with other soccer leagues, not other sports, therefore they should have their season from september through may like the rest of the world. otherwise all we will ever get is washed up players like henry. if the MLS ever hopes to be a top league in the world, or at least second tier they need to change the season

I don't agree with that. The MLS is just competing to survive and grow. They don't view or at least should not view themselves as competing with the NFL, NBA, MLB or any premier soccer leagues at this point. They are just trying to get a small piece of the pie and their current schedule provides them the best opportunity for that.

If they did move their season, then they would put themselves in direct competition with the great soccer leagues of the world and they know they would lose. That would cost them lots of money, which they can't afford to do. That would be a bad move. You don't do that just for the hope of eventually becoming a top level league. You become a top level league first or at least get well on the way to becoming a top level league and then change seasons. Not the other way around.

In a certain sense you will always be competing with other sports because there will always be some overlap in seasons between the MLS and the big 3 sports. That is just unavoidable. I don't think the MLS wants to go head to head with the NFL every single weekend and that is what would happen if you moved the MLS to September through May. It would also impact scheduling since some teams share facilities with NFL teams. That is becoming less of a problem since more and more MLS franchises are getting their own soccer only stadiums.

Their current schedule works for what they are right now. Sure if they do eventually become a top league then they would probably change the season, but you don't do it until you are getting close to becoming a top level league.

[ethiostar]

You don't need an athlete to play soccer. Does Messi look like an athlete? Does Xavi? They are not the better athletes from their age groups but they both have developed a brilliant technique and mind to play soccer. If America's best athletes played soccer we would look like England instead of America, and what are they doing in the World Cup? Since winning in '66 they have only finished in the top 4 once and they have never won the Euro Championship.

If this is what you envision when you think of the word athlete then, no, Messi is not an athlete.

http://www.muscleprodigy.com/content/articles/home/the-world-s-most-jacked-athletes-946.jpg (http://www.muscleprodigy.com/content/articles/home/the-world-s-most-jacked-athletes-946.jpg)

However, the word athlete has very little to do with body build.

Dictionary.com

–noun a person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength; a participant in a sport (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sport), exercise, or game (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game) requiring physical skill.

Merriam-Webster.com

: a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina

[Cythim]

yes.
does a defensive end or a left tackle look like an athlete? does a middle distance runner? different skill sets need different body types and abilities, just because they don't have the body to play wide receiver doesn't mean they're not athletes. try playing a pass, then run for twenty minutes - sprint for 60 yards and try making the same pass. factor in guys trying to get the ball off you and then decide whether or not you need to be an athlete to be a player.

I was specifically talking about their physical appearance. Soccer players look more like middle distance runners than the prototypical American athlete. I'm not asking are they or aren't they, I am asking if they have the physical appearance that is coveted in American sports.

[Cythim]

This is one of the oddest statements I've ever heard. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that better athletes aren't important when competing in an athletic competition. Athletic competitiions require athletic skills.

Of course it's true that lesser athletes can increase their ability to compete by learning technique and learning all the ins and outs of the game, and that sometimes a person can become a top player without having elite athleticism, but that doesn't change the fact that the better the athlete that is learning the techniques and the ins an outs of the game, the better the player. It absolutely makes a difference if a player can run faster, switch directions more quickly, jump higher attempting to head the ball, out manuever the opponent and has the natural dexterity to handle the ball - if the athlete has superior athletic ability AND learns the techniques and the ins and outs of the game, that's going to be the better player.

An example from another sport might be John Stockton and Michael Jordan - both top notch NBA players. Both had great instincts for the game, had a great understanding of the game, learned the techniques and tools of the game, and of the two Stockton may well have been superior in all those areas - but Jordon had elite athletic ability and Stockton did not, therefore Jordon was clearly the better player.

The reality is that there are several elements to being a great athlete in any sport - obiously learning the techniques and learning the ins and outs of the game is one element, being dedicated is another, and athletic ability is another. The better a player is in all those areas the better player he will be. The first two elements can be learned or practiced if a person will put in the time and effort, but the 3rd is something a person either has or does not have.

Put a ball at each of their feet and who do you think would become the better soccer player between Stockton and Jordan? Would Jordan's strength and speed beat Stockton's technical ability and understanding of the game?

[Cythim]

If this is what you envision when you think of the word athlete then, no, Messi is not an athlete.

http://www.muscleprodigy.com/content/articles/home/the-world-s-most-jacked-athletes-946.jpg (http://www.muscleprodigy.com/content/articles/home/the-world-s-most-jacked-athletes-946.jpg)

However, the word athlete has very little to do with body build.

Dictionary.com

–noun a person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength; a participant in a sport (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sport), exercise, or game (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game) requiring physical skill.

Merriam-Webster.com

: a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina

Yes, lets take a literal meaning of my statement instead of actually reading what I've written. They are all athletes, and so are the guys who throw stones done the ice in the winter Olympics. If Messi and Xavi are at the NFL combine they won't be impressing anyone in most of the drills.

[Stautner]

Put a ball at each of their feet and who do you think would become the better soccer player between Stockton and Jordan? Would Jordan's strength and speed beat Stockton's technical ability and understanding of the game?

You are missing the point.

Are you somehow under the impression that the only people that can develop technical skills and understanding are those that are somewhat deficient athletically?

What I'm saying is that you are going to have better soccer players if you have players who are BOTH great atheltes who also develop the technical ability and the understanding of the game.

In other words, the combination of great athleticism and great technique & understanding is going to produce a better soccer player than one who only has moderate athleticism to go with great technique and understanding.

That really doesn't seem debateable. Obviously soccer, like other sports, requires technique and understanding, and the better developed those things are the better the player. But soccer is also, like other sports, a physical contest, and the more capable the player is physically the better he will be as well.

[CATCH17]

A THOUGHT ABOUT THE GAME:

I had never watched an entire soccer game in my life other than ones my very young kids played in. I watched this one, and was glued to the TV the entire match. Games like this, and the conversion of (or eventual death of) hard headed old farts like me who never gave soccer a chance will help change sports culture in the US so that kids (males in particular) will be more likely to choose soccer as a primary sport at an early age with their parents blessing.


Thank you!

I was the exact same way except for the old part.


I despised the sport but never gave it a chance.

Well I started giving it a chance and now I love it.


The sport is so easy on the eye.

[CATCH17]

You don't need athlete's, but it helps. If you just improved the athleticism of the U.S. men's team you would have a better team; however, that is only one part of the equation. You also have to improve the technical aspects of the players and the team.


The thing is Americans should have both.

We should have bad *** athletes who are smart and skillful. Thats what American sports is.

[daschoo]

I was specifically talking about their physical appearance. Soccer players look more like middle distance runners than the prototypical American athlete. I'm not asking are they or aren't they, I am asking if they have the physical appearance that is coveted in American sports.
Yes, lets take a literal meaning of my statement instead of actually reading what I've written. They are all athletes, and so are the guys who throw stones done the ice in the winter Olympics. If Messi and Xavi are at the NFL combine they won't be impressing anyone in most of the drills.

Curling is not athletic, no more than darts is. Both technically very difficult (and a decent watch in my opinion) but you don't need to be in great shape. Personally I would have said that the two guys you have mentioned are more athletic than a heck of a lot of guys at the NFL combine. Take a defensive tackle and have him compete against Xavi in a variety of athletic competitions (swimming, running, lifting, endurance, tennis etc) Xavi would likely win the majority. That doesn't mean that the defensive tackle is not athletic it just means that the body type required for his role is more specialised. That's what I was meaning when I disagreed with you as to me Xavi and Messi have a body type that is more suited to a wider variety of athletic activities than a lot of American athletes.

[Cythim]

You are missing the point.

Are you somehow under the impression that the only people that can develop technical skills and understanding are those that are somewhat deficient athletically?

What I'm saying is that you are going to have better soccer players if you have players who are BOTH great atheltes who also develop the technical ability and the understanding of the game.

In other words, the combination of great athleticism and great technique & understanding is going to produce a better soccer player than one who only has moderate athleticism to go with great technique and understanding.

That really doesn't seem debateable. Obviously soccer, like other sports, requires technique and understanding, and the better developed those things are the better the player. But soccer is also, like other sports, a physical contest, and the more capable the player is physically the better he will be as well.

The problem with your argument is that the physical requirements of soccer are not the same as those for football, baseball, or basketball. Ocho Cinco is a superior athlete in the NFL, and I have no doubt he could've been a superior athlete in the MLS. I do highly doubt he could've been a world class player. Could Donovan or Dempsey have made it into the NFL/NBA/MLB? Doubtful.

We have over 200 D1 schools that play soccer, which equates to more than 5000 soccer players at the collegiate level. Add in the D2 and D3 schools and we are looking at 10,000 collegiate players. The problem isn't that we aren't playing it enough, the problem is we do not know how to scout or develop talent. We look for NFL and NBA athletes instead of the athletic kids with technical ability.

[Cythim]

Curling is not athletic, no more than darts is. Both technically very difficult (and a decent watch in my opinion) but you don't need to be in great shape. Personally I would have said that the two guys you have mentioned are more athletic than a heck of a lot of guys at the NFL combine. Take a defensive tackle and have him compete against Xavi in a variety of athletic competitions (swimming, running, lifting, endurance, tennis etc) Xavi would likely win the majority. That doesn't mean that the defensive tackle is not athletic it just means that the body type required for his role is more specialised. That's what I was meaning when I disagreed with you as to me Xavi and Messi have a body type that is more suited to a wider variety of athletic activities than a lot of American athletes.

I like watching curling as well, not sure why it just seems interesting.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Xavi beat a guy like LeBron James in those same activities. My point is that the American idea of an athlete is not what we need on the soccer field. You don't have to be the biggest, strongest, or fastest to play soccer. That is one of the great things about this game.

[joseephuss]

I like watching curling as well, not sure why it just seems interesting.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Xavi beat a guy like LeBron James in those same activities. My point is that the American idea of an athlete is not what we need on the soccer field. You don't have to be the biggest, strongest, or fastest to play soccer. That is one of the great things about this game.

Being bigger, stronger or faster will help a person in any sport. Those things are always a benefit and are rarely a negative. You look for those things, but it isn't the top priority to some extent. First you need to find someone with a natural talent for the particular sport. And then you have to get them to work to develop the skills required to play that sport. But if someone has those assets, then being bigger, stronger and faster will only help them.

No on can tell me that Messi would not be even better if he were a little bit bigger and a little bit stronger. Obviously, it is his natural abilities and the skills he has worked hard at to hone that primarily make him great. You need those first, but if he somehow became 4 inches taller and a little bit more muscular, then that would only make him better. And Messi already has the fast aspect to his athleticism.

You don't start with an athlete and then build a soccer player. You start with a soccer player and then try to improve their athleticism. That is actually true of any sport. And if you are lucky you start with a player(pick any sport) who is also a great athlete.

[Cythim]

You don't start with an athlete and then build a soccer player. You start with a soccer player and then try to improve their athleticism. That is actually true of any sport. And if you are lucky you start with a player(pick any sport) who is also a great athlete.

This only plays into my argument. We have plenty of athletes playing soccer. We have big, strong, and fast players in the US soccer system. We have guys that can match the athleticism of Rooney, Ronaldo, and Messi. The problem is we covet big, strong, and fast while ignoring the technical ability. We have a Messi out there somewhere but he is riding the bench because in youth soccer size is better for winning. We don't need more athletes playing soccer, we need to develop the ones we do have into actually being able to play.

[Stautner]

The problem with your argument is that the physical requirements of soccer are not the same as those for football, baseball, or basketball. Ocho Cinco is a superior athlete in the NFL, and I have no doubt he could've been a superior athlete in the MLS. I do highly doubt he could've been a world class player. Could Donovan or Dempsey have made it into the NFL/NBA/MLB? Doubtful.

We have over 200 D1 schools that play soccer, which equates to more than 5000 soccer players at the collegiate level. Add in the D2 and D3 schools and we are looking at 10,000 collegiate players. The problem isn't that we aren't playing it enough, the problem is we do not know how to scout or develop talent. We look for NFL and NBA athletes instead of the athletic kids with technical ability.

You didn't say before that you didn't need great athletes with certain traits, you said soccer didn't need great athletes period.

Moving on from there, your argument about soccer players not needing the same physical skills as athletes in other sports doesn't fly either. Of course football linemen, or baseball power hitters, or basketball centers don't have the right physicque/physical traits for soccer, but many WR's, DB's, middle infielders and outfielders, point guards etc would have ideal physical traits for soccer.

As for technical ability, you still seem to be under the impression that if a great athlete is playing another sport that he is incapable of learning the technical skills of soccer. That's simply illogical. The point isn't that John Stockton or Jason Kidd or Wes Welker or Terrence Newman or Julio Borbon or Cutis Granderson or any number of people like them are incapable of learning the technical skills to play soccer, its that they are never drawn to soccer to begin with. Had they or an almost infinite number of others been drawn to soccer at an early age, and started learning the technical skills of soccer from an early age, there is no telling how good they may have been at soccer.

You have world class sprinters that go into football, but not soccer - are you really suggesting that kind of speed wouldn't be a big plus for a soccer player? You have some of the quickest, most agile people in the world playing basketball - are you really suggesting that kind of quickness and agility wouldn't be a big plus for a soccer player? Sppedy athletic middle infielders and outfielders in baseball who can run down balls and twist and turn and stop on a dime an chage directions to make plays - are you saying those traits don't fit with soccer?

Come on - like someone else said, the better the athlete, the better the player. The only way that isn't true is if you make the illogical assumption that better athletes are incapable of learning the technical aspects of the game.

What has to change for men's soccer in the US to be the best it possibly can is that it has to be able to compete for the best athletes from an early stage in their lives so they can grow up learning the technical skills of soccer just like they might otherwise do with football, baseball or basketball.

[Cythim]

Come on - like someone else said, the better the athlete, the better the player. The only way that isn't true is if you make the illogical assumption that better athletes are incapable of learning the technical aspects of the game.

It isn't an illogical assumption, because the technical aspects of the game are not being taught! We teach, preach, and promote physicality over skill in all levels of soccer because it is the easier way to win. Compare the U.S. strikers to teams like Spain and Brazil and you will notice a huge difference in size. We are more comparable to the Dutch and Germans, but their big, strong strikers are much more technically sound than ours. Altidore compares favorably in terms of athleticism to Huntlaar, van Persie, Klose, and Robben but falls horribly behind in technical ability.

We can take US soccer players and match any team in the world in athleticism. We fall behind in technical ability. Instead of increasing the player pool we need to work on teaching the player pool how to play soccer.

So I stand by my statement, we don't need athletes because we already have them.

[Stautner]

It isn't an illogical assumption, because the technical aspects of the game are not being taught! We teach, preach, and promote physicality over skill in all levels of soccer because it is the easier way to win. Compare the U.S. strikers to teams like Spain and Brazil and you will notice a huge difference in size. We are more comparable to the Dutch and Germans, but their big, strong strikers are much more technically sound than ours. Altidore compares favorably in terms of athleticism to Huntlaar, van Persie, Klose, and Robben but falls horribly behind in technical ability.

We can take US soccer players and match any team in the world in athleticism. We fall behind in technical ability. Instead of increasing the player pool we need to work on teaching the player pool how to play soccer.

So I stand by my statement, we don't need athletes because we already have them.

Now you are getting even more illogical. If the technical aspects of the game aren't getting taught, how does that say anything at all about whether better athletes are as capable of learning techniques as lesser athletes? Maybe you just misread what you quoted, because your response has nothing to do with what I said was illogical.

Are you somehow saying that lack of teaching is not a problem for lesser athletes and a bigger problem for better athletes? if so, that makes no sense. If there is a teaching problem in US soccer it doesn't discriminate between those with better or worse athletic ability.

By the way, it looks like your position is evolving. First you said that it isn't necessary for soccer players to be outstanding athletes, then you changed that and said great athletes who aren't soccor players don't have the traits to be soccer players, and now you are saying soccer does have great athletes.

My response to that is, yes there are some outstanding athletes in soccer - nobody ever said otherwise. What we said was that in the US soccer isn't competing on an even field for the best of the best athletes, because sports culture throughout most of the US still puts football, baseball an basketball higher on the priority list. Nothing you have said changes that.

The reality is that every sport would have a better choice of the elite atheletes if other sports didn't exist - that's not a point that is unique to soccer. The reason it affects soccer more is simply because soccer has not reached a point in American culture where it is able to attract the eilite athletes as well as the other sports. Whether soccer players are being taught as well as they can be is a separate issue.

[joseephuss]

It isn't an illogical assumption, because the technical aspects of the game are not being taught! We teach, preach, and promote physicality over skill in all levels of soccer because it is the easier way to win. Compare the U.S. strikers to teams like Spain and Brazil and you will notice a huge difference in size. We are more comparable to the Dutch and Germans, but their big, strong strikers are much more technically sound than ours. Altidore compares favorably in terms of athleticism to Huntlaar, van Persie, Klose, and Robben but falls horribly behind in technical ability.

We can take US soccer players and match any team in the world in athleticism. We fall behind in technical ability. Instead of increasing the player pool we need to work on teaching the player pool how to play soccer.

So I stand by my statement, we don't need athletes because we already have them.

I disagree. While it is obvious the U.S. is lacking in technical ability I think they are also lacking in athleticism. You see other countries blow by the back line of the U.S. time and time again.

[Stautner]

I disagree. While it is obvious the U.S. is lacking in technical ability I think they are also lacking in athleticism. You see other countries blow by the back line of the U.S. time and time again.

I agree. The difference is that even though many of those coutries are smaller, and often much smaller, than the United States, their kids grow up eating drinking and breathing soccer, and our kids do not. Our kids grow up eating, drinking and breathing football, baseball and basketball, and while soccor ocassionally will draw a top athlete, for the most part in the US soccer settles for those that are left over. There may still be some solid athletes in the bunch, but by and large not the best by any means.

I think what Cythim needs to realize is that it's possible for coaching to be a little lacking AND for athleticism to be a little lacking.

The reality is both shortcomings stem from the same source - that soccer is essentially a second tier sport in the USA. If it were a top tier sport it would be able to have both better athletes and better coaches.

[Cythim]

I disagree. While it is obvious the U.S. is lacking in technical ability I think they are also lacking in athleticism. You see other countries blow by the back line of the U.S. time and time again.

We get beat on the back line because we don't know how to play soccer. You can put a world class sprinter back there and he will get beat if he is constantly out of position. You can rely on athleticism to make up for the inability to play soccer at a youth and college level but athleticism losses out at the senior level. Try to increase the number of athletes and we will only have more dumb athletes who don't know how to play soccer. :bang2:

[MC KAos]

i still think a big part of it is finding kids that are talented and developing them from an early age. Most countries scout for talent as young as 12 or 13. at that age, a lot of kids in the US are still playing soccer and have not yet been overrun by the desire to play football or whatever other sport is more popular here. I still contend that the biggest problem is at the top, we need scouts, we need better youth leagues. we might even need to do what other big clubs do and just pay kids as young as 14 or so to play on a club! its so weird here because of the NCAA and everything else, but in other countries its how it works. Barcelona has been together since they were all in their early teens, messi included. They go out and find talent to bring in to the clubs youth system early. at the very least we should invite scouts from European clubs to try to find talent here in addition to south america.
With the Hispanic population in this country alone we should be able to field a decent soccer team.

[Cythim]

i still think a big part of it is finding kids that are talented and developing them from an early age. Most countries scout for talent as young as 12 or 13. at that age, a lot of kids in the US are still playing soccer and have not yet been overrun by the desire to play football or whatever other sport is more popular here. I still contend that the biggest problem is at the top, we need scouts, we need better youth leagues. we might even need to do what other big clubs do and just pay kids as young as 14 or so to play on a club! its so weird here because of the NCAA and everything else, but in other countries its how it works. Barcelona has been together since they were all in their early teens, messi included. They go out and find talent to bring in to the clubs youth system early. at the very least we should invite scouts from European clubs to try to find talent here in addition to south america.
With the Hispanic population in this country alone we should be able to field a decent soccer team.

Great point about the Barca system. Another note about their youth program is they do not train kids to win games! They do win games because Barca is a great system, but they train kids to play the Barca style of soccer. From the lowest level of their youth system (10 or 12 I think) the kids are being taught the exact same game that the seniors run.

As for the hispanic population, here is a quote from a hispanic parent that I have heard many times over regarding youth soccer in America:


I am a hispanic Father of a great player. I do see that , because my son is a small player, he has to go the difficult route. He is smart, has the dribbling, the posession the passing etc. but, when it comes to opportunities on the field, coaches want to match size to size (like in American Football) not skill to skill.


Yes, this is a parent talking about their own child, and we all know how parents are concerning the ability and playing time of their children. The problem is there is truth in the statement and it happens all of the time. MLS had a chance to sign a great kid from Argentina, but they dropped the ball because of his age and size and now he is playing for River Plate.

[joseephuss]

We get beat on the back line because we don't know how to play soccer. You can put a world class sprinter back there and he will get beat if he is constantly out of position. You can rely on athleticism to make up for the inability to play soccer at a youth and college level but athleticism losses out at the senior level. Try to increase the number of athletes and we will only have more dumb athletes who don't know how to play soccer. :bang2:

You are talking about two topics at once. Yes, the U.S. need to do a better job of developing players, skills and the technical aspect of the game. They can do that and still it would be beneficial to find better athletes to go along with it. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

No one said just to find athletes. We have been talking about finding athletes who have a love for soccer and have been playing since they were kids and have worked to hone their game. That is a vital step needed for the U.S. to be good at soccer. I don't know if and when that will happen, but it needs to happen. If you increase the overall player pool, you increase the chances that you will find players who excel at the both the technical aspect of the game and who are also very good athletes. You don't want to diminish the potential pool of players.

[Cythim]

I guess the part that you fail to understand is that we have very good athletes playing the game already. In terms of athletes we can match up with any team in the world. Give us a bigger player pool and gains will be marginal because we already have the athletes. Give us NFL/NBA players and there will be no gains because we will stick to physical soccer that doesn't win on the international level.

If we simply train the athletes properly who already play soccer our team will be much better. Once our team gets better more kids will stick with it and add to the player pool. Instead of talking about what we cannot do (force more kids to stick with soccer) we should be discussing what we can do (properly training our kids who do play).

[Stautner]

I guess the part that you fail to understand is that we have very good athletes playing the game already. In terms of athletes we can match up with any team in the world. Give us a bigger player pool and gains will be marginal because we already have the athletes. Give us NFL/NBA players and there will be no gains because we will stick to physical soccer that doesn't win on the international level.

If we simply train the athletes properly who already play soccer our team will be much better. Once our team gets better more kids will stick with it and add to the player pool. Instead of talking about what we cannot do (force more kids to stick with soccer) we should be discussing what we can do (properly training our kids who do play).

The thing I don't buy about this is the notion that if you put better athletes out there you have no choice but to sacrifice training and technique in order to focus on the physcality of the players. I understand your point about lack of quality coaching, but coaching doesn't improve with lower quality players - if a coach sucks he is going to suck regardless of the physical skills of the players.

A point I'm not sure anyone has mentioned yet is that quality coaches come from players that grow up playing and loving the sport. That's the way it is with every sport. Accordingly, the more mainstream soccer gets, not only will the result be that soccer is more able to compete for the better athletes, soccer will also develop a better coaching pool as well.

[Cythim]

I am not saying there is no choice but to sacrifice technique, I am telling you that we do sacrifice technique for athleticism. If we just add more athletes or better athletes we haven't changed anything in terms of technique. We can get much better simply by teaching our current pool of soccer playing athletes how to play soccer.

[Stautner]

I am not saying there is no choice but to sacrifice technique, I am telling you that we do sacrifice technique for athleticism. If we just add more athletes or better athletes we haven't changed anything in terms of technique. We can get much better simply by teaching our current pool of soccer playing athletes how to play soccer.

I have never said that adding better athletes solves everything, but you have seem to keep suggesting that the solution to coaches sacrificing technique for athletes is to quit trying to get the better athletes.

The idea should be to improve both the quality of the athletes and the quality of the coaches, and as I mentioned in my last post, much of the solution for both lies in the same thing, which is soccer reaching a point that it is more mainstream and can compete for athletes at an early age on a more equal basis with other sports. The larger the pool of physically gifted and athletically minded people a sport can draw from, the better the athletes will be competing in the sport, and the better selection of ex-players there will be to become coaches. Sure there will still be bad coaches - don't kid yourself, that is the case with every sport - but the more mainstream a sport is, the better the options will become for athletes and coaches.

Think about it - it's common sense. Lacrosse and Rugby have less of a selection than soccer does because they are much less mainstream than soccer in the US. Cricket less than Lacrosse and Rugby. It's just natural - the earlier you can get kids interested, and the more socially acceptible it is for the better athletes to participate in a sport, the better the players and the coaches will be.

[Cythim]

I have never said that adding better athletes solves everything, but you have seem to keep suggesting that the solution to coaches sacrificing technique for athletes is to quit trying to get the better athletes.

The idea should be to improve both the quality of the athletes and the quality of the coaches, and as I mentioned in my last post, much of the solution for both lies in the same thing, which is soccer reaching a point that it is more mainstream and can compete for athletes at an early age on a more equal basis with other sports. The larger the pool of physically gifted and athletically minded people a sport can draw from, the better the athletes will be competing in the sport, and the better selection of ex-players there will be to become coaches. Sure there will still be bad coaches - don't kid yourself, that is the case with every sport - but the more mainstream a sport is, the better the options will become for athletes and coaches.

Think about it - it's common sense. Lacrosse and Rugby have less of a selection than soccer does because they are much less mainstream than soccer in the US. Cricket less than Lacrosse and Rugby. It's just natural - the earlier you can get kids interested, and the more socially acceptible it is for the better athletes to participate in a sport, the better the players and the coaches will be.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that we don't have athletes playing soccer. We can compete with any team in the world athletically, we lose out on technical ability. How many times do I need to tell you this before it sinks in? Do you think Agudelo and Altidore are less athletic than any other striker combo in international soccer? Do you watch MLS at all? It is full of American athletes. They have size, speed, strength, everything but the technical ability to play at an elite international level.

[joseephuss]

You seem to be stuck on the idea that we don't have athletes playing soccer. We can compete with any team in the world athletically, we lose out on technical ability. How many times do I need to tell you this before it sinks in? Do you think Agudelo and Altidore are less athletic than any other striker combo in international soccer? Do you watch MLS at all? It is full of American athletes. They have size, speed, strength, everything but the technical ability to play at an elite international level.

And you are wrong. The U.S. players cannot compete athletically with other countries. If you had them all compete in a variety of different athletic competitions I think the U.S. players would do poorly compared to soccer players from other countries.

Yes, I do think the strikers don't compare well to other countries. I don't think Altidore is a good athlete at all. He has size and that is it. He doesn't have great straight line speed, has very little lateral movement, is not that quick and has no endurance.

You are absolutely right that the technical abilities have to be improved. You are fooling yourself if you think the U.S. has top notch athletes playing soccer.

[Cythim]

And you are wrong. The U.S. players cannot compete athletically with other countries. If you had them all compete in a variety of different athletic competitions I think the U.S. players would do poorly compared to soccer players from other countries.

Yes, I do think the strikers don't compare well to other countries. I don't think Altidore is a good athlete at all. He has size and that is it. He doesn't have great straight line speed, has very little lateral movement, is not that quick and has no endurance.

You are absolutely right that the technical abilities have to be improved. You are fooling yourself if you think the U.S. has top notch athletes playing soccer.

Then by all means, go recruit your football, basketball and track athletes and see how well they convert to soccer players when no one will teach them how to play the game. :bang2:

[joseephuss]

Then by all means, go recruit your football, basketball and track athletes and see how well they convert to soccer players when no one will teach them how to play the game. :bang2:

That is just stupid. No one has said anything about not teaching them soccer. Not a single person. We have all agreed that the technical abilities have to be improved and that is the main issue. Some of us have also said that the quality of the athlete also needs to be improved. It has never been about one thing or the other. It has always been about both except for you. You are the one that thinks they don't need to improve the quality of athlete to go along with improving the quality of the technical aspects of the game.

[Cythim]

Of course improving the quality of athlete will always be a bonus, the question is how much can we actually improve? You seem to think we have a long way to go in catching up on the athletic level when that just isn't the truth. If you cannot see the athletic prowess in the U.S. talent pool it is because you are not looking.

[Stautner]

You seem to be stuck on the idea that we don't have athletes playing soccer. We can compete with any team in the world athletically, we lose out on technical ability. How many times do I need to tell you this before it sinks in? Do you think Agudelo and Altidore are less athletic than any other striker combo in international soccer? Do you watch MLS at all? It is full of American athletes. They have size, speed, strength, everything but the technical ability to play at an elite international level.

No, and in fact I have said there are good athletes in soccer. What I have said is that soccer doesn't compete for the elite athletes on the same level as other sports, so while there are good athletes playing soccer, and maybe even the ocassioinal elite one, the overall athleticism still falls short of where it could be.

As far as being able to compete with any team in the world athletically, I'm not sure if that's true or not, but why be satisified with that if you can reach the point of being superior to any team in the world athletically?

And again, as far as coaches go, you still seem to be missing the point that the pool of coaches is derrived from the pool of ex-players, and the more soccer is able to compete with other sports for players in the US as a mainstream sport with America's youth, the greater the pool of both athletes and coaches will be as they get older.

There simply is no way to believe that if soccer were able to attract young athletes in the same way football or baseketball does that it would be better off for it. The bigger the pool of people to choose from the better the product will always be. It's why a high school with 500 students can't put a team out that can compete with a high school with 5,000 students. Teh bigger the pool, the better the odds of getting better players - and eventually better coaches as well. It's basic commmon sense.

[Cythim]

No, and in fact I have said there are good athletes in soccer. What I have said is that soccer doesn't compete for the elite athletes on the same level as other sports, so while there are good athletes playing soccer, and maybe even the ocassioinal elite one, the overall athleticism still falls short of where it could be.

As far as being able to compete with any team in the world athletically, I'm not sure if that's true or not, but why be satisified with that if you can reach the point of being superior to any team in the world athletically?

And again, as far as coaches go, you still seem to be missing the point that the pool of coaches is derrived from the pool of ex-players, and the more soccer is able to compete with other sports for players in the US as a mainstream sport with America's youth, the greater the pool of both athletes and coaches will be as they get older.

There simply is no way to believe that if soccer were able to attract young athletes in the same way football or baseketball does that it would be better off for it. The bigger the pool of people to choose from the better the product will always be. It's why a high school with 500 students can't put a team out that can compete with a high school with 5,000 students. Teh bigger the pool, the better the odds of getting better players - and eventually better coaches as well. It's basic commmon sense.

500 students that know how to play soccer will beat 5000 athletes who don't. It's basic common sense.

[Cythim]

Also, how are athletes who don't know how to play soccer supposed to train other athletes to play soccer? It will be a cycle of athlete over talent.

[Stautner]

500 students that know how to play soccer will beat 5000 athletes who don't. It's basic common sense.


There you go again, responding based on the completely illogical notion that the pool of 5,000 cannot have the same level of coaching or the same ability to learn the game as the pool of 500, and that makes absolutely zero sense.

The reality is that the odds are dramtically better that you can find players who can learn the game out of a pool of 5,000 than out of a pool of 500. The other reality is that a quality coach is dramatically more likely to be drawn to a coaching job where they have a pool of 5,000 to chose from in stead of a pool of 500.

A good coach is a good coach and a bad coach a bad coach regardless of having a pool of 5,000 or 500 to choose from. What the bigger pool to choose from does is give that good or bad coach a better group of athletes to coach.

What having a pool of 5,000 rather than 500 also does for you is give you a much greater chance of finding the kind of player that may turn into a good coach someday.

There is a reason teams have tryouts, and companies interview several candidates for jobs - it's common sense the the bigger the pool of people to shoose from the better the odds of getting the best people for what you need.

[daschoo]

EW2d-QrnFgA
only half joking but idiots like this commentating won't help the sports profile.

[Stautner]

Also, how are athletes who don't know how to play soccer supposed to train other athletes to play soccer? It will be a cycle of athlete over talent.


You aren't paying attention. This apparetly has all sailed over your head.

I'm talking about soccer competing for players AT A YOUNG AGE. If you are waiting until athletes are high school age, or people are coaching age to try and compete you are missing the boat by a long shot.

I'm talking about soccer evolving over time - I'm not sure how you have missed that.

It all starts with kids. If kids grow up believing soccer is a secondary sport and the cool kids or best athletes play football instead, then that not only cuts into soccers talent pool at that point, it cuts into soccers talent pool as that generation grows up.

The point I am making is that the bigger the share of the talent pool soccer can compete for at a young age (I've said that over and over again), the better the talent pool and the better the coaching candidates that will be developed as they grow older.

[Cythim]

There you go again, responding based on the completely illogical notion that the pool of 5,000 cannot have the same level of coaching or the same ability to learn the game as the pool of 500, and that makes absolutely zero sense.

The reality is that the odds are dramtically better that you can find players who can learn the game out of a pool of 5,000 than out of a pool of 500. The other reality is that a quality coach is dramatically more likely to be drawn to a coaching job where they have a pool of 5,000 to chose from in stead of a pool of 500.

A good coach is a good coach and a bad coach a bad coach regardless of having a pool of 5,000 or 500 to choose from. What the bigger pool to choose from does is give that good or bad coach a better group of athletes to coach.

What having a pool of 5,000 rather than 500 also does for you is give you a much greater chance of finding the kind of player that may turn into a good coach someday.

There is a reason teams have tryouts, and companies interview several candidates for jobs - it's common sense the the bigger the pool of people to shoose from the better the odds of getting the best people for what you need.

You are operating in a vacuum while I am talking about the current state of soccer in the U.S. The following countries have less than 5 percent of our population yet are ranked ahead of us in FIFA:

7 - Portugal 11 million
9 - Croatia 4 million
12 - Norway 5 million
13 - Greece 11 million
17 - Montenegro <1 million
19 - Sweden 9 million

So here we are with more than 20 times the population of all of these nations, yet we cannot put a team on the field that is better than any of them.

This debate was over before it started. The problem is with our youth development, not the level of athleticism in the sport.

[Cythim]

You aren't paying attention. This apparetly has all sailed over your head.

I'm talking about soccer competing for players AT A YOUNG AGE. If you are waiting until athletes are high school age, or people are coaching age to try and compete you are missing the boat by a long shot.

I'm talking about soccer evolving over time - I'm not sure how you have missed that.

It all starts with kids. If kids grow up believing soccer is a secondary sport and the cool kids or best athletes play football instead, then that not only cuts into soccers talent pool at that point, it cuts into soccers talent pool as that generation grows up.

The point I am making is that the bigger the share of the talent pool soccer can compete for at a young age (I've said that over and over again), the better the talent pool and the better the coaching candidates that will be developed as they grow older.

Soccer is the most widely played sport in the US. Our kids play soccer. This is why we have "soccer moms" and not "basketball moms" or "football moms" or "baseball moms".

[MC KAos]

i think klinsmann is a great start, the way he converted the german national team was very impressive.

[Stautner]

You are operating in a vacuum while I am talking about the current state of soccer in the U.S. The following countries have less than 5 percent of our population yet are ranked ahead of us in FIFA:

7 - Portugal 11 million
9 - Croatia 4 million
12 - Norway 5 million
13 - Greece 11 million
17 - Montenegro <1 million
19 - Sweden 9 million

So here we are with more than 20 times the population of all of these nations, yet we cannot put a team on the field that is better than any of them.

This debate was over before it started. The problem is with our youth development, not the level of athleticism in the sport.

Soccer is the most widely played sport in the US. Our kids play soccer. This is why we have "soccer moms" and not "basketball moms" or "football moms" or "baseball moms".

What you don't get is soccer is the most widely played sport among 4-7 year old kids. Why? Because it's safer and much easier for a small child to grasp the basics for that age group than other sports. Its the sport mommy and daddy put them in very young because there is no real concern about injury for mommy and daddy doesn't have to know anything about the sport to get out and kick the ball around with Junior.

So great - you've got a boatload of tiny kids playing soccer at an age where the only rule is kick the ball at the goal, and the only thing to remember is which goal is yours.

The problem is that as kids get older baseball, basketball and football absolutely dominates the better athletes. Soccer is the safe starter sport for little kids, but ultimately the best athletes want to be part of that high school football team that the town comes out to watch on Friday Nights, and the basketball team while dreaming of Michael Jordan. Everyobody know the Yankees, but only a small fraction knows anything about professional soccer teams.

There may be a handful of places around the country where soccer is a top sport, but I bet 95% of the people on this board would tell you that their experience as a former athlete or the parent of an athlete proves that the top athletes at any age group are dramatically more prone to gravitate to football, baseball and/or basketball than soccer.

HERE'S A QUESTION I WANT YOU TO ANSWER:

Why is it it that there are so few quality soccer coaches in the USA?

[daschoo]

You are operating in a vacuum while I am talking about the current state of soccer in the U.S. The following countries have less than 5 percent of our population yet are ranked ahead of us in FIFA:

7 - Portugal 11 million
9 - Croatia 4 million
12 - Norway 5 million
13 - Greece 11 million
17 - Montenegro <1 million
19 - Sweden 9 million

So here we are with more than 20 times the population of all of these nations, yet we cannot put a team on the field that is better than any of them.

This debate was over before it started. The problem is with our youth development, not the level of athleticism in the sport.

The FIFA rankings are a joke though. It has the Faroe Islands ranked above Wales for example or Hungary ranked 13 places above Scotland. Norway are nowhere near the 12th best team on the planet. Your point is fairly valid just using the FIFA rankings to back it up I don't agree with.

i think klinsmann is a great start, the way he converted the german national team was very impressive.

The success the Germans had in 2006 was not down to Klinsman. He did well no denying that and his stock rose immeasurably off the back of that tournament but he was not the catalyst for the re-emergence of Germany as a force in world football. You need to go further back to 2001 and the collapse of the TV deal that the Bundesliga had in place. This denied clubs money to spend on transfers thus meaning they had to blood youngsters in the first teams. Because they had to do this and because the German Bundesliga requires all its clubs to be financially viable or face points deductions (unlike say the Premiership where you have teams hundreds of millions of pounds in debt) it meant they concentrated on youth development and invested in coaching the young players coming through their systems. If you look at the current German team (and 2006) most of them came through when clubs didn't have the money to spend on ready made stars and had to develop their own, probably not coincidental that its the best German team since they won the World Cup at Italia '90.

[Stautner]

The FIFA rankings are a joke though. It has the Faroe Islands ranked above Wales for example or Hungary ranked 13 places above Scotland. Norway are nowhere near the 12th best team on the planet. Your point is fairly valid just using the FIFA rankings to back it up I don't agree with.

The thing some have to remember is that while these other countries have a much smaller population than the US, they have a much deeper fanaticism about soccer, and have no problem drawing a much larger portion of the elite athletes into soccer.

Soccer will likely never gain the national fanaticism in the US it has in other countries, and football, baseball and basketball will always be tough to pull elite athletes away from, but clearly the more soccer becomes accepted and enjoyed and followed by a larger portion of the US population, the better able it will be to compete for elite athletes, and the bigger and better the pool of quality coaches there will be.

The reality is soccer is an evolving sport in the US, and while it certainly has made big strides, it still has a long way to go to attract athletes, and subsequently coaches, in the same way football, baseball and basketball can.

[Cythim]

What you don't get is soccer is the most widely played sport among 4-7 year old kids. Why? Because it's safer and much easier for a small child to grasp the basics for that age group than other sports. Its the sport mommy and daddy put them in very young because there is no real concern about injury for mommy and daddy doesn't have to know anything about the sport to get out and kick the ball around with Junior.

So great - you've got a boatload of tiny kids playing soccer at an age where the only rule is kick the ball at the goal, and the only thing to remember is which goal is yours.

The problem is that as kids get older baseball, basketball and football absolutely dominates the better athletes. Soccer is the safe starter sport for little kids, but ultimately the best athletes want to be part of that high school football team that the town comes out to watch on Friday Nights, and the basketball team while dreaming of Michael Jordan. Everyobody know the Yankees, but only a small fraction knows anything about professional soccer teams.

There may be a handful of places around the country where soccer is a top sport, but I bet 95% of the people on this board would tell you that their experience as a former athlete or the parent of an athlete proves that the top athletes at any age group are dramatically more prone to gravitate to football, baseball and/or basketball than soccer.

HERE'S A QUESTION I WANT YOU TO ANSWER:

Why is it it that there are so few quality soccer coaches in the USA?

3.7% is a small fraction and that is the population of several nations who are better than the U.S. Are you trying to argue that there are not 11 million of 301 million Americans that love soccer more than the other sports? That argument contradicts your 500 vs 5000 argument from earlier. We have enough population playing soccer to be competitive.

I love how you pass off soccer players as being 4-7 years old. Football doesn't get popular for kids until high school, where about 1 million kids play football compared to about 400,000 for soccer (yes, this is boys only).

Why don't we have good coaches? Because of the culture of soccer in the US. Our players are taught a physical game where technical aspects are not as important. Alex Morgan, one of our premier women, said the part of her game that needs the most work is her first touch, but it is okay for now because she has the speed to recover. That is the mindset of the American soccer player: if I have the physical skills I don't need to worry as much about the technical aspects. It is what the coaches learned, so it is what they teach. If Alex Morgan becomes a coach will she teach speed and recover or will she teach first touch? She will probably teach what has worked to get her to the top in the U.S. game.

[Cythim]

The thing some have to remember is that while these other countries have a much smaller population than the US, they have a much deeper fanaticism about soccer, and have no problem drawing a much larger portion of the elite athletes into soccer.

Soccer will likely never gain the national fanaticism in the US it has in other countries, and football, baseball and basketball will always be tough to pull elite athletes away from, but clearly the more soccer becomes accepted and enjoyed and followed by a larger portion of the US population, the better able it will be to compete for elite athletes, and the bigger and better the pool of quality coaches there will be.

The reality is soccer is an evolving sport in the US, and while it certainly has made big strides, it still has a long way to go to attract athletes, and subsequently coaches, in the same way football, baseball and basketball can.

Where do you come up with this idea that superior athletes create superior coaches? The best coaches may have played in their youth, but they are also extremely intelligent students of the game. Sir Alex is a great coach but certainly didn't have a stellar playing career, José Mourinho wasn't a very good player either. Erickson, Wagner, Hiddink or Rafa? You wouldn't call any of them elite athletes or great players, but they are all among the best soccer coaches in the world.

If you look at American sports, was Phil Jackson an elite talent? No, he was a 6th man who played good defense. He made up for his lack of athleticism by being a smart player. Vince Lombardi? Jimmy Johnson? Bill Belichick? None of them were great players. Do you think Jordan would make a good coach? How about Kobe or LeBron? Troy Aikman? Emmitt Smith?

[Stautner]

3.7% is a small fraction and that is the population of several nations who are better than the U.S. Are you trying to argue that there are not 11 million of 301 million Americans that love soccer more than the other sports? That argument contradicts your 500 vs 5000 argument from earlier. We have enough population playing soccer to be competitive.

I love how you pass off soccer players as being 4-7 years old. Football doesn't get popular for kids until high school, where about 1 million kids play football compared to about 400,000 for soccer (yes, this is boys only).

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying we should intentionally keep soccer as a minor sport in America so it will be more fair to smaller countries. Do you think there should be a quota of elite American athletes so that we will have approximately the same number of elite athletes as smaller countires?

What you should be thinking about is how to get the most elite, most athletically gifted athletes in America to play soccer, and if it means we end up with a team that is so overwhelming more talented than the international competition, then so be it.

As for where you live, I don't know where that is, but football becomes popular way before high school in most of the country. That's actually pretty ridiculous - do you think kids strap on the pads for the first time at 15 and make good football players? Besides, the issue wasn't simply about the number of participants, it was about the number oof the elite athletes.

As for the 500 vs. 5,000 number, did you actually ridiculously take that as me saying that is the proportion of people who love soccer as opposed to other sports. If so, it's mind boggling that you could pull that out of your backside because that fringes on lunacy. I was talking about the difference in competativeness between a school with 500 kids versus 5,000 kids.

[quote=Cythim;4028648]Why don't we have good coaches? Because of the culture of soccer in the US. Our players are taught a physical game where technical aspects are not as important. Alex Morgan, one of our premier women, said the part of her game that needs the most work is her first touch, but it is okay for now because she has the speed to recover. That is the mindset of the American soccer player: if I have the physical skills I don't need to worry as much about the technical aspects. It is what the coaches learned, so it is what they teach. If Alex Morgan becomes a coach will she teach speed and recover or will she teach first touch? She will probably teach what has worked to get her to the top in the U.S. game.

As for the "culture of soccer" in America, are you really suggesting there are no coaches that understand the importance of the technical aspects of the game, or are you saying there aren't enough of them?

Do you not think football, baseball and basketball started out having llimited quality coaches? Of course they did, but as the sports became so engrained in American culture, and drew more and more athletes, the pool of both althletically gifted and athletically minded players, and eventual coaches grew.

The question, again, becomes, why wouldn't soccer want to increase the quality of BOTH the coaches and the athletes? And, again, the bigger the pool of the athletic and athletic minded people that are involved in the sport, the bigger the pool of potential future coaches along with the better the pool of athletes.

Where do you come up with this idea that superior athletes create superior coaches? The best coaches may have played in their youth, but they are also extremely intelligent students of the game. Sir Alex is a great coach but certainly didn't have a stellar playing career, José Mourinho wasn't a very good player either. Erickson, Wagner, Hiddink or Rafa? You wouldn't call any of them elite athletes or great players, but they are all among the best soccer coaches in the world.

If you look at American sports, was Phil Jackson an elite talent? No, he was a 6th man who played good defense. He made up for his lack of athleticism by being a smart player. Vince Lombardi? Jimmy Johnson? Bill Belichick? None of them were great players. Do you think Jordan would make a good coach? How about Kobe or LeBron? Troy Aikman? Emmitt Smith?

You need to go back and read again because I never said superior athletes make superior coaches. What I said was the bigger the pool of athletes and athletic minded people soccer can draw from the bigger the pool of potential coaches, which will lead to better coaches.

[Cythim]

How do we get the best athletes to go to soccer instead of some other sport? We stop putting an inferior product on the field! If we could put players onto Champions League caliber squads and avoid poor results against lesser opponents the interest in soccer would increase. You do this by increasing the level of technical ability on the field.

Quality over quantity. Once you take care of the first the second will happen on it's own.

[Stautner]

How do we get the best athletes to go to soccer instead of some other sport? We stop putting an inferior product on the field! If we could put players onto Champions League caliber squads and avoid poor results against lesser opponents the interest in soccer would increase. You do this by increasing the level of technical ability on the field.

Quality over quantity. Once you take care of the first the second will happen on it's own.

Obviously increasing the level of technical ability on the field will help, but how do you do that with the same coaches that aren't teaching it now. You can't just magically make better coaches. It has to happen over time that more quality coaches come into the game, and again, the larger the pool of athletes and athletically minded players that play the game, the larger the pool of eventual coaches to choose from will be.

And, of course, part of what will help with putting an inferior product on the field is drawing the more elite athletes, so it's kind of a Catch-22. The reality is that it's a process, just as it was with the early days of football and basketball. They didn't immediate have the popularity they do now, but over time they grew. They started out in the early days with caoches who had never played the game, but over time the coaching pool grew and better coaches with a better understanding of the game became available. That's the kind of thing I am talking about with soccer as well.

And personally i think soccer is well on its way and headed in the right direction. When I was a kid there was no organized soccer, and over the years it became a sport a few played here and there, mostly those that couldn't make it in other sports and whose parents still wanted them to experience a team activity, and it has grown today where it is huge with the younger kids and you are ocassionally seeing a top quality athlete stick with it as he gets older. Over time I think that trend will continue, and soccer will continue to improve in the US.

[Cythim]

Easy, you import coaching from countries who know how to play soccer. We've already taken the first step with Klinsmann. We aren't the only nation that plays soccer and we certainly aren't the best at it. If someone else is better than you at something you borrow their people to teach you how to do it.

We also have several foreign coaches and front office personnel throughout MLS that are capable of improving the youth academies of those teams. Over half of the MLS coaches were actually foreign-born, even though some grew up in the states.

[Stautner]

Easy, you import coaching from countries who know how to play soccer. We've already taken the first step with Klinsmann. We aren't the only nation that plays soccer and we certainly aren't the best at it. If someone else is better than you at something you borrow their people to teach you how to do it.

We also have several foreign coaches and front office personnel throughout MLS that are capable of improving the youth academies of those teams. Over half of the MLS coaches were actually foreign-born, even though some grew up in the states.

Hmm, well I guess that's a bit of a shortcut, and the same can occur with the talent by importing players as well, but ultimately we still have to develop our own coaches and players, and right now soccer is at the stage in the US that basketball was 50-60 years ago. The good news for soccer fans is the groundwork has been laid with good youth programs all over the country, so it's just a matter of time as the sport becomes more mainstream in our culture.

[joseephuss]

The problem is less a question of what sport an athlete chooses than providing access to an underserved, under-recruited, unnoticed group of athletes. An invisible group that isn't being tapped.

Klinsmann, who lives in Southern California, obviously has spent a lot of time thinking about the issue. And his answers about what the youth programs of America should be were more forthcoming than his assessment of the current state of the U.S. team.

"The youth teams should reflect again the mixture of cultures. It should reflect what's going on in this country," Klinsmann said. "There's so much influence from the Latin environment over the last 15-20 years, that also has to be reflected in the U.S. national team."

Klinsmann said he wants to tap into America's "melting pot" and find a style that reflects the culture of this country. He's learned a lot during his years of living in the U.S.: about the push for college, about the rigid youth system, about the lack of pickup soccer or hours of kicking a ball around outside of an organized practice.

"It doesn't matter how he plays, with his dad or with his buddies in the street, this will show later on with his technical abilities, with his passing, with his instinct on the field," Klinsmann said of his hypothetical player. "I think that's certainly an area where a lot of work is ahead of us."

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/ann_killion/08/02/us.klinsmann/index.html#ixzz1TzfNW9OI

[Stautner]

The problem is less a question of what sport an athlete chooses than providing access to an underserved, under-recruited, unnoticed group of athletes. An invisible group that isn't being tapped.

Klinsmann, who lives in Southern California, obviously has spent a lot of time thinking about the issue. And his answers about what the youth programs of America should be were more forthcoming than his assessment of the current state of the U.S. team.

"The youth teams should reflect again the mixture of cultures. It should reflect what's going on in this country," Klinsmann said. "There's so much influence from the Latin environment over the last 15-20 years, that also has to be reflected in the U.S. national team."

Klinsmann said he wants to tap into America's "melting pot" and find a style that reflects the culture of this country. He's learned a lot during his years of living in the U.S.: about the push for college, about the rigid youth system, about the lack of pickup soccer or hours of kicking a ball around outside of an organized practice.

"It doesn't matter how he plays, with his dad or with his buddies in the street, this will show later on with his technical abilities, with his passing, with his instinct on the field," Klinsmann said of his hypothetical player. "I think that's certainly an area where a lot of work is ahead of us."

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/ann_killion/08/02/us.klinsmann/index.html#ixzz1TzfNW9OI

This blends into what I am saying - the bigger the pool of athletes the better. Soccer simply has to become more popular, more accessible, more accepted in US culture, more mainstream. Anybody who thinks soccer is competing for athletes on anywhere near the same level as other sports is fooling themselves. Kids grow up around people going nuts over basketball, baseball and football - those sports are all over prime time TV. They are all over the front page of the newspaper. They are all over the home page for ESPN.com. Soccer gets that attention during the World Cup and Olympics.