**Official USMNT Soccer Thread**

I think Klinnsman is the victim of his own words right now. Like Psk said he promised us more free flowing football. The days of us defending 99.9% of the game were supposed to be slowly getting weened out. I didn't see much of that in 2014, and I'm not seeing much of that now. I didn't expect a drastic change overnight, but some change would have been nice. I understand the talent pool isn't amazing but we shouldn't be losing to Guatemala and Jamaica
 
Tell me about it. Just the though of not going to the WC scares me. We better get it together tonight. Especially in C-BUS, where in reality its our home field advantage. We need a win!!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes
 
Look at how MLS teams got washed in the CONCACAF CL earlier this year. I mean our teams got absolutely smoked by LIGA MX teams. Jurgen might be guilty of tactical errors with formations & not making changes to game plans when things go south, but it all boils down to the players & their heart.
CONCACAF CL isn’t and will never be a particularly meaningful representation of the disparity between MLS and Liga MX as long as it maintains it’s current format. Those MLS teams were getting “washed” by MX teams who in midseason form, before the rest of their MLS counterparts are even reporting to preseason.

Everyone knows Liga MX is superior to MLS, best method of capturing that is comparing the amount of $ Liga MX clubs spend on player salaries vs. MLS. On average they spend 50% more thus on average they field better teams.
I see it in youth soccer all the time watching teams play when my 12 year old has games. Kids aren’t being taught how to read games. They have no idea what roles their positions need to play. I hear stupidly from coaches that players should know how to play all positions on the field. Kids really don’t understand the various formations & what they’re designed to do. Coaches don’t even change formations if the current game plan isn’t working (not that the kids would understand the change).
PSK, your example of coaches making players play in every position instead of focusing on their strengths is the reason I quit playing when I was younger. I'm not saying that I would've become a professional player or something, but I was a decent left back that my coach frequently played out of position because of me being smaller than the average American defender, even though there are/have been plenty of world class left/right backs that are my height or shorter in big clubs all over Europe (I'm 5'8 ). It was so damn frustrating to be put in as an attacking midfielder that couldn't pass when the only thing I was good at was harassing wingers and forwards
laugh.gif
You guys are pretty off base here. It's stupid to place too much emphasis on specialization before puberty. Nobody in the world of soccer does it. Calling for it shows a lack of understanding.  Does a kid need to know how to play every position on the field, no? But 99% of developmental approaches in the world see tremendous value in young players going through learning experiences at a wide range of positions in their prepubescent stages. 

Even well through puberty up until 16/17, in most cases strict specialization is "stupid."  You show me a CAM who can't be effective on the wing, or a RW who can't effectively play RB at the amateur/youth level and I'll show you a player who likely isn't an intelligent player, a player who likely isn't technically sufficient. 
I watched my son's coach put this kid whose a natural striker playing him on the wing. He kept getting lost in the sauce on the outskirts & ended up coughing up the ball almost every time. Several times this kid got pushed centrally & everytime he went head on at the goal, we had a best chances to score. 
mean.gif
So this 12 year old kid who's a "natural striker" should just say **** it and get pigeonholed into a position he may not even be suited for after he goes through puberty? He should NOT learn how to play effectively as a wide forward because he can bag a couple of goals at a youth tournament? Who cares if he lost the ball playing a position he's less familiar with? Is the goal to win or to develop intelligent, competent players?

Same with @SFC415, obviously I don't know the details of you situation but it sounds like you think your coach should have let you mask your limitations by hiding you at LB, letting your run around like a chicken with its head cut off, instead of teaching you how to pass and developing you into an actual soccer player. 

In both cases that's EXACTLY the kind of coaching that was common place in the 90's and early 2000's that's slowly being erraddicated. That's exactly the kind of coaching that developed the current group of U.S. players some of you hate so much.
 
Last edited:
:lol I knew I'd awaken the resident MLS stan. You're my man 100 grand though northoaklandfc northoaklandfc but we will agree to disagree. I gave you a rep because you made some salient points even if I disagree with them.

I realize there are extenuating circumstances that cause the gap between Liga MX vs MLS.

Liga MX is an older more established league, individual teams in Liga MX can spend more, etc, etc but money should not be used as an excuse for a number of reasons like the average salaries for MLS is catching up to Liga MX.

I'll give you that Liga MX teams are already in some form when it comes to the concacaf CL, but it's more like 9 game into the LMX season if I remember correctly. If that's indeed a big enough issue, don garber doesn't seem to care much.

Even if MLS did follow a similar schedule, they would still get washed not only because of the quality in players but more importantly the quality of coaching too. MLS teams still get washed later in the year when/if they play.

The talent level in MLS teams isn't that deep. Each team currently has probably 8 to 10 players of quality. After that, the talent level drops off tremendously and that's not only said by me but its been echo'd by pundits like Steve Nicol, Paul Mariner, & Brian McBride who all have had experience in the league.

But getting back to the money, that's not a good argument either. Case in point, Luis Aragones & his Spanish tiki taka revolution. At the time of his implementation as La Roja's manager, Spain wasn't really thought of as a footballing powerhouse (although they weren't a backwater footballing nation either) even if the likes of Barcelona & Madrid were in their domestic league.

They also weren't in a position to spend the kind of money the Germans did to develop great footballers given the state of their economy at the time.

Spain also didn't have players that were bigger, stronger, & faster. What they did do in-spite of that was develop the very best technical footballers as they could & combine that with the right tactics that would enable them to compete on an international level. What unfolded there after was done in-spite of not having gobs of money to throw at development.

Don Iniesta is the perfect example of this. Had he come up in any other country, including the US, we would've most likely never seen him play because he didn't meet the physical attributes a lot of countries follow.

Conversely, whose to say the "12 year old natural striker" wouldn't be a good striker if he didn't grow into having the prototypical striker's body post puberty?

Using that logic, one would never see a Messi play up front because he dame sure doesn't look like the typical striker but it's ability and the tactics in which he's deployed that help him excel up front.

Also you're making an assumption the 12 year old I spoke of & sfc415 sfc415 received the kind of coaching that would help them excel in a different role (which is one of the reasons why we're leaving the team my son is on).

A lot of the youth coaching here in the states footy wise is still very poor (when it comes to youth club/travel footy). It's actually poor in most of the other sports too (do I need to mention aau basketball?) but that's a whole other conversation.

Using you're logic like your acting like US can develop a player like Atleti's Juan Fran who started as a striker & ended up one of the world's best fullbacks. That type of coaching just doesn't exist at the moment here in the US.

I'd rather we have coaches meet tougher standards to achieve coaching licenses who can then identify the strengths of young players & teach them how to play the game across the board & we don't have that right now.

Edit - Outside of the top MLS teams, I'd much rather watch an NCAA footy game (if available) than an MLS game... A lot more fun to watch IMO.
 
Last edited:
Howard let us down last game. I'm sure guzan will too. I don't watch u23 the keepers any good ?
 
laugh.gif
 I'm not an MLS stan I'm just thoroughly objective in my understanding of the league, especially as it relates to the world game - and not just in comparison to the upper 20th percentile of the top leagues. 

Money is not an excuse, it's THE single biggest differentiating factor when comparing any league to another. It's more important than culture and infrastructure and far more important than tradition and history. 

Saying MLS salaries are catching up to Liga MX salaries so the disparity in money spend isn't meaningful is kind of absurd. There are a number of fantastic players in Liga MX who earn 2-3 million USD  a year.  It wasn't until 2015 that the MLS salary cap PER TEAM grew to greater than $3M/year. 

In 2016 the cap is $3.6M after the biggest salary cap increase in league history. But the salaries are gaining on Liga MX though, money shouldn't be used as a reason to explain the disparity. Come on man.
eyes.gif


I said from the jump that Liga MX is superior to MLS. I've also said by years a realistic goal for MLS would be catching up with Liga MX in the next 10 - 20 years, despite the pipe dream of some Americans who  want a league on par with the EPL by 2022.  

I've also said for years on here that the area where MLS teams fall off relative to leagues like Liga MX and the Championship is roster spots numbers 12 - 24. The depth isn't there. There's no depth because there's no money. 
But getting back to the money, that's not a good argument either. Case in point, Luis Aragones & his Spanish tiki taka revolution. At the time of his implementation as La Roja's manager, Spain wasn't really thought of as a footballing powerhouse (although they weren't a backwater footballing nation either) even if the likes of Barcelona & Madrid were in their domestic league.

They also weren't in a position to spend the kind of money the Germans did to develop great footballers given the state of their economy at the time.
Spain's unspectacular position as a footballing nation up until recently is almost entirely a result the political instability post Franco. 
 
Spain also didn't have players that were bigger, stronger, & faster. What they did do in-spite of that was develop the very best technical footballers as they could & combine that with the right tactics that would enable them to compete on an international level. What unfolded there after was done in-spite of not having gobs of money to throw at development.
I don't think you understand how much more money they put towards development than we do currently, even in their nation's darkest days. 
 Don Iniesta is the perfect example of this. Had he come up in any other country, including the US, we would've most likely never seen him play because he didn't meet the physical attributes a lot of countries follow.
Sadly this would have been true in the U.S. twenty years ago. Ten years ago unlikely, in 2016 there isn't a chance in hell. 
Conversely, whose to say the "12 year old natural striker" wouldn't be a good striker if he didn't grow into having the prototypical striker's body post puberty?

Using that logic, one would never see a Messi play up front because he dame sure doesn't look like the typical striker but it's ability and the tactics in which he's deployed that help him excel up front.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  I never said anything about whether or not he'll be a good striker. My point was he'll be a better striker, if he's taught to play inside and outside at 12 years old. I don't understand what Messi has to do with this. 

No 12 year old should be limited to experiencing the game in one position.  That's not how good football players are developed and it's a view that's understood everywhere. 
Also you're making an assumption the 12 year old I spoke of & @SFC415  received the kind of coaching that would help them excel in a different role (which is one of the reasons why we're leaving the team my son is on).
I didn't make any assumption about the specific coaching being received by either player in either situation. I made a statement - in 90% of cases, having players strictly specialize in one position before their 15/16 is BAD coaching. The type of coaching that plagued this country for generations.

 
A lot of the youth coaching here in the states footy wise is still very poor (when it comes to youth club/travel footy). It's actually poor in most of the other sports too (do I need to mention aau basketball?) but that's a whole other conversation.
A lot of youth coaching is bad in Spain too... and in Germany... and in Holland. There's bed coaching everywhere. That's why we need to focus on the good coaching, and focus on developing more good coaches, like the aforementioned countries do. 
 
Using you're logic like your acting like US can develop a player like Atleti's Juan Fran who started as a striker & ended up one of the world's best fullbacks. That type of coaching just doesn't exist at the moment here in the US.
Your interpretation of my logic is off. A player like Juan Fran wasn't developed purely as a striker from 12-15 years old. I don't get what you mean by that kind of coaching doesn't exist in the U.S. What type of coaching exactly? The coaching that can develop well rounded players? 
I'd rather we have coaches meet tougher standards to achieve coaching licenses who can then identify the strengths of young players & teach them how to play the game across the board & we don't have that right now.
I'ts not a zero sum game. It's not something we either have or don't have. There are plenty of quality coaches in the U.S. What we need is more of them. What we really need is enough of them to effectively develop the talent pool that comes with a population of 340 million people. That, we're a long ways off from, but to say we don't quality coaches is nonsense.  

 
Edit - Outside of the top MLS teams, I'd much rather watch an NCAA footy game (if available) than an MLS game... A lot more fun to watch IMO.
I don't even believe that, that's just silly man. From a tactical standpoint unlimited substitutions make college soccer incomparable to the real game. Typical college soccer is a handful of the lesser players run and press until their exhausted at which point a replacement comes on.  Completely disrupts any sense of flow or rhythm, leads to players playing under constant pressure that would be near impossible to replicate in the real game, which leads to a long of ugly kick and run. There are a few exceptions, UC Berkeley has played beautiful soccer for years under Kevin Grimes. But college soccer is one of the ugliest remnants of the past generations of American soccer. 
 
Last edited:
They new kits cool. I was playing Fifa and saw the 02 kit, those and the new ones look similar. Also mess with the old aways with the flag on the numbers.
 
Back
Top Bottom