pro soccer, us soccer

USL spending and a new D2 idea

At SocTakes, Nipun Chopra has done a deep dive into USL spending, which has really ramped up over the last decade.

You could say that’s a strong rebuttal to the notion that people are unwilling to spend money on lower-division clubs that have no pathway to the upper divisions unless they have a spare couple hundred million to spend. But it’s not that simple, and Nipun suggests we could be looking at another USL bubble as we had in the late 90s. (He actually uses the analogy of a Shepard tone, which is brilliant.)

The figure that stands out: Player salaries per team are somewhere in the $250,000-$500,000 range. That’s maybe $10,000-$20,000 per player. More likely — a few players are making a living range while a lot of others are filler.

In the grand scheme of things, I’ll always argue that I’m more concerned about women’s national team pool players barely making $10,000 in the NWSL, and I’d love to know why all these owners are more willing to spend this kind of money on the 21st through 40th best men’s teams in the United States instead of the top 10 women’s teams. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

But let’s see if we can make things a bit better for the men. If the NASL had one legitimate point, it was the idea that the Cosmos and a couple of other teams (look, if you’re going to say MLS operations with sprawling youth programs aren’t “clubs,” then I’m not going to call Miami FC a “club,” either) were able to pay a bit more. I’m not going to say “what they deserve” because, for the umpteenth time, I’m not going to weep for Danny Szetela wrapping up his professional career after 15 years and 100 chances while Tori Huster and other potential *World Cup players* have to play the offseason in Australia and risk overuse injuries just to keep playing into their mid-20s.

Sorry … sorry … you can tell this sort of nonsense is difficult to swallow. But anyway …

Paradoxically, I think we can create more high-paying jobs for non-MLS players if we have fewer Division 2 teams. Here’s how:

  • Let D2 teams be freed from whatever central management the USL is imposing. You may need a salary cap (I actually prefer the luxury-tax model) to keep at least a little bit of parity, but put it really high — say, $1.5 million for a luxury tax or $2 million for a cap. That might actually convince NASL holdouts to come over and play. (If Commisso and Silva don’t like it, fine. Sell the teams.)
  • Everyone else drops to D3, which would retain a stronger central league management.

What we’re headed toward now doesn’t make a lot of sense. Thirty-some D2 teams and barely eight D3 teams? Let’s leave the inverted pyramid to journalists, shall we?

So we might have, say, 16 teams playing D2. Top of my head, drawing heavily from an attendance chart and some belief in markets that deserve better (St. Louis, for instance) — Cosmos, Miami FC, Jacksonville, North Carolina, Sacramento, Indy, Louisville, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Oklahoma City.

That’s 14. I’m not sure USL stalwarts Richmond, Charleston and Pittsburgh would want to spend that much.

Yes, you in the back? You have a question? Let me guess — what about promotion/relegation?

I think it’s feasible here. Start D2 with the 14 clubs (and yes, some of them are clubs — look at the Richmond Kickers and tell me otherwise) and two others.

You’d need some caveats. If the Kickers, who have opted on multiple occasions not to go big-time, don’t want to go up, don’t force them. But if the top two teams in D3 think they’re ready to try D2, go for it. Perhaps those teams would include an MLS reserve side — the USA certainly wouldn’t be the only country with reserve sides on these tiers of a functional pyramid.

And you might need some bolsters for relegated teams. If they have academies, perhaps they should have a specially designated parachute payment to keep those academies running. (I still can’t believe someone related to the Cosmos once mocked such a suggestion with a Helen Lovejoy-esque “Think of the children!” motif. If we’re not trying to develop young players, what the hell are we doing? Let’s just shut it all down and watch the EPL on TV.)

Perhaps then we could see the following steps:

  • NPSL-Pro and NISA join up with this model to give us even more D3 fun.
  • A top-tier amateur division, which could officially D4, has promotion opportunities to D3. (I don’t think relegation from D3 to D4 is necessary or advisable unless we have hundreds of clubs at D3 — at this stage in the USA’s development, it makes no sense whatsoever to bump a pro club with an academy of any sort down to an amateur league.)
  • Then, yes, perhaps pro/rel between D1 and D2.

The latter would have some criteria involved. Not just the usual “pile of money to ensure club doesn’t fold midseason” but also stringent academy criteria such as the ones Germany imposed.

And a women’s pro team. So many we can finally start paying Tori Huster what she deserves as a nice side benefit to giving a few hundred more guys a chance to earn a living in this game.

pro soccer

Fun with international club rankings

How would Atlanta or the New York teams fare in other leagues? How about the Colorado Rapids?

We have no idea. But FiveThirtyEight runs its statistical magic on such things, so why not play around with the data and do some projecting?

First, let’s take a look at all the leagues whose clubs are in the rankings and compare them three ways:

  • Mean (average)
  • Median
  • Sum of top five (the “cross-country meet” scoring system)

This is what we get, sorted by mean …

LEAGUE COUNTRY MEAN MEDIAN TOP 5
La Liga Spain 45.3 36.0 59
Bundesliga Germany 52.7 46.5 87
Premier League England 80.0 87.0 42
Serie A Italy 93.1 99.0 58
Ligue 1 France 108.0 108.5 159
Russia PL Russia 148.4 121.0 248
Brasileirão Brazil 207.3 207.0 503
Superliga Argentina 223.3 206.0 546
Süper Lig Turkey 223.7 243.5 339
Primeira Liga Portugal 229.4 261.5 381
Super League Switzerland 237.4 251.0 668
Liga MX Mexico 257.8 264.5 848
La Liga 2 Spain 261.5 243.5 818
Bund (Austria) Austria 268.3 276.0 797
Eredivisie Netherlands 285.6 323.5 430
2. Bundesliga Germany 294.7 312.0 1075
Championship England 303.8 335.5 842
Allsvenskan Sweden 331.2 379.0 820
Ligue 2 France 340.3 383.5 951
Serie B Italy 349.0 386.0 1089
MLS USA 363.3 376.0 1277
Eliteserien Norway 366.9 400.0 1168
Premiership Scotland 368.7 423.0 1286

The top MLS team in the rankings is Atlanta United (213), then NYCFC (231, pending a likely loss to Seattle in a few minutes) and the New York Red Bulls (234). Here’s how Atlanta would stack up in each league.

  • 2nd: Scottish Premiership
  • 3rd: 2. Bundesliga (Germany)
  • 3rd: Eliteserien (Norway)
  • 3rd: Ligue 2 (France)
  • 3rd: Serie B
  • 4th: Austrian Bundesliga
  • 5th: Premeira Liga (Portugal)
  • 6th: Allsvenskan (Sweden)
  • 6th: Eredivisie
  • 6th: Championship (England — in the playoffs!)
  • 6th: Super League (Switzerland)
  • 7th: Liga MX (also in the playoffs, maybe)
  • 9th: Süper Lig (Turkey)
  • 10th: La Liga 2
  • 13th: Brasileirão
  • 14th: Russian Premier League
  • 16th: Superliga (Argentina)
  • 20th: Ligue 1 (ahead of Metz)
  • 20th: Serie A (ahead of Verona)
  • Last: Bundesliga, La Liga, Premier League

The 10th-ranked team in MLS is LAFC at 356th. How would they rank elsewhere?

  • 5th: Scottish Premiership
  • 6th: Eliteserien (Norway)
  • 8th: Austrian Bundesliga
  • 8th: Allsvenskan (Sweden)
  • 9th: Super League (Switzerland)
  • 9th: Ligue 2 (France)
  • 10th: Serie B
  • 11th: Eredivisie
  • 15th: Russian Premier League (ahead of two)
  • 16th: 2. Bundesliga (Germany)
  • 17th: Championship (England)
  • 17th: Süper Lig (Turkey)
  • 18th: Liga MX (ahead of Veracruz)
  • 20th: La Liga 2 (has 22 teams, so ahead of three)
  • 27th: Superliga (Argentina)
  • Last: Bundesliga, La Liga, Premier League, Brasileirão, Ligue 1, Premeira Liga (Portugal, barely), Serie A

Colorado is ranked 449th. They would finish last in each league except Ligue 2, Allsvenskan (Sweden), Eredivisie (??!!), Scottish Premiership, Eliteserien (Norway) and the Super Lig (Turkey). They wouldn’t be relegated in Sweden or Scotland. Everywhere else, they’re second- or third-tier.

us soccer, youth soccer

Repealing the birth-year mandate and other obvious moves

Some of the initiatives U.S. Soccer has rolled out over the last 10 years are well-researched and sensible.

Restrictions on heading the ball are simply a safety issue, and coaches should be able to adapt to teach proper technique and judging the flight of the ball. (Or, just as a wild notion, maybe playing the ball out of the back instead of blasting it 70 yards up the field and yelling “win it!” to a tall person.) Small-sided games are globally accepted as a better idea than tossing a bunch of first-graders into an 11v11 game.

Other initiatives are worth discussing. The new coaching education system is an improvement in many ways but could use a few tweaks, most of which shouldn’t be decided by one person’s experience.

Then you have The Dumbest, Most Wrong-Headed Thing U.S. Soccer Has Done To The Youth Game And There’s Really No Debating It.

That would be the mandate on birth-year age groups.

U.S. Soccer can say, with some justification, that we don’t have hard data linking birth-year mandate to the stagnant-to-declining youth soccer participation numbers. (Note to Soccer America commenters: Gripe about the methodology of the study all you want, and it’s a good point that Spanish-speaking communities may not have been adequately represented, but it’s awfully difficult to see those numbers and come up with a way that youth soccer participation is increaing.) Fine. But at some point, it’s a bit like eating three party-sized bags of potato chips each day and pointing out that we don’t know the heart attack we just had was directly the result of eating all those chips. Sure, there may be other factors, but we have plenty of evidence to show this was not good.

Maybe the evidence is anecdotal. But it’s an awful lot of anecdotes. In my case, it’s every parent with whom I’ve talked. Every coach. Every administrator who is not directly employed by U.S. Soccer.

Conversely, no one has made the case for extending the birth-year mandates from the Development Academy and ODP all the way down to U-Little soccer. No one has explained why a child’s first experience with soccer has to be, “Oh, sorry, you can’t play with your kindergarten classmates because you were born in November and they were born in February.” We may hear coaches were confused because some players in a U17 scrimmage were born in one year and some in another, but they don’t seem to realize some gifted players may be playing up anyway, and they don’t understand how confusing it is for parents and club registrars to deal with this stuff on a grassroots level. I don’t mean to impose, coach, but if you can’t take a few seconds to ask whether that player you’re scouting is a 2002 or 2003, your time management skills suck.

In fact, U.S. Soccer has tried to avoid saying such things with a lot of corporate-speak. “We’re not saying you can’t have a kindergarten league, but you can’t have a kindergarten league.” That sort of thing. Initially, at least one club was able to clarify that its rec league could continue on school-year age groups. Another admin told me otherwise but agreed that U.S. Soccer wasn’t going to send the police or even kick that club’s top teams out of the Development Academy.

It’s telling that AYSO, the mostly recreational organization, felt compelled to go along with the mandate. (Don’t tell anyone, but some clubs’ “House” leagues do not. Shhhh.)

United Soccer Coaches’ Lynn Berling-Manuel, formerly of AYSO and Soccer America, points a finger at U.S. Soccer in yet another can’t-miss Soccer America interview. Here’s the key paragraph:

Let’s reframe the conversation from player development to cultural development. We’d like to redefine “preeminent” in the U.S. Soccer mission statement “to make soccer the preeminent sport in the United States” to: ensure that every player falls in love with soccer. And that “fun” is defined by a player at any age or level saying, “I want to do it again.”

If we have a better soccer culture — one of the goals of everything from soccer field-building to promotion/relegation — does anyone doubt we’ll end up with better players?

U.S. Soccer can’t simply flip a switch and repeal the birth-year mandate. They’ve asked thousands of teams to reconfigure once already. No point in making them do it again.

Here’s what USSF can do:

Make a distinction between elite leagues and everything else, and let the elite leagues stay on birth-year groups.

The Development Academy and ECNL will be “elite.” Leagues that feed into U.S. Youth Soccer national championships — most likely just the top divisions — will be “elite.” (Leagues that feed into U.S. Club Soccer national … look, U.S. Club Soccer shouldn’t be running “national championships” aside from ECNL in the first place, but that’s another rant.)

These leagues start at U12 (probably should be U14, but that’s also another rant) and attract players who have advanced well past the introductory phase of the game. They have to get through intense tryouts to make it this far, and playing with friends isn’t the priority here.

Other travel leagues and recreational leagues can start phasing out the birth-year groups at will.

This process won’t really take that long. The reason we’re not making an immediate transition is because we don’t want to break up teams — again. But under the birth-year groups, you have to break up teams when they hit high school or college anyway. A team might have half its players taking a season off to play high school soccer, and then you have to reconfigure anyway.

So maybe next fall, if we’re talking about a league that starts travel at U9, have birth-year groups at U16 and U17. (U19 is often combined U18-U19 anyway — frankly, there’s no reason to have U18 at all.) Let U15 go back to school-year (or Aug. 1 or whatever makes sense). Have birth-year at lower age groups where you’re trying to keep teams together.

Clarify, once and for all, that recreational leagues never had to be on birth-year in the first place.

Again, a few of them weren’t. AYSO should’ve simply said they’re not going to do it. They can go back to school-year or other age groups immediately — they bust up teams every season already. (Which they shouldn’t, but that, too, is another rant. Actually, I recently ranted about this and some of the other “another rants” above.)

So if you run a rec league for middle schoolers, great. Kindergartners? Great. High schoolers? Great. (Tons of players don’t make their high school teams, so a rec league can keep them involved.)

One question some of you surely have by now: Why do we care so much about “teams”? Aren’t we all club-centric by now? Shouldn’t we want kids to move up and down between teams? 

A lot of clubs say they’re club-centric and will move players from B-team to A-team from week to week. How many actually do it?

And that’s OK — to an extent. Ideally, a club would have the following in each age group:

  1. An A-team in an elite league with a fluid roster, calling players up from lower teams as needed.
  2. Several teams in other leagues and lower divisions. (As argued in the last rant, the pyramid should ultimately reach down to rec teams as well.)
  3. A no-commitment free-play option. And maybe some of these players can fill in on the other teams.

If a player moves on to a DA, ECNL or other elite team permanently, so be it. We certainly don’t want to slam that door. Everyone else should be allowed to play with friends at convenient practice fields — as they will when they play college intramurals and adult amateur soccer.

And then we’ll build that soccer culture, which is quite clearly about something more than forcing kids into a soccer-development machine at age 4.

youth soccer

Now for sale: TRAVEL SUCKER T-shirts

Are you a travel sucker?

It’s OK. Many of us are. We’ve paid thousands of dollars for this, and we’re wondering whether this is really worth it.

But when we laugh about it, we gain power over it. We demonstrate that we have serious questions about what we’re doing and why. Maybe we shouldn’t have driven 200 miles for this game. Maybe we parents should have more of a say on a team that isn’t going to send 15 people to college and three more to the pros.

shirt-e1532540500273.pngSo show your pride. Show that you’re an independent thinker with a sense of humor. And support Ranting Soccer Dad in the process.

This shirt has the TRAVEL SUCKER logo in the place where a sponsor logo would go on a typical jersey. The RANTING SOCCER DAD logo is where you might have a Nike swoosh or a Puma or adidas mark.

And the badge? It’s a bit like England’s three lions, but instead of lions, we have minivans.

Shirts are available for a limited time direct from CustomInk. I’ll also be shipping a few to supporters on Patreon once they hit a threshold of donations.

Patreon supporters can also get a window cling that looks like this …

rsd-decal-full

Finally, if you have not yet “liked” Ranting Soccer Dad on Facebook, please do. As Bluto once said, don’t cost nothin’.

Your support will help me decide how much more of this to do. I’ll be revving up the parents’ guide again in a few weeks once all the leagues have settled. The podcast is back underway. And I’m planning a short book.

Rant on.

podcast, us soccer

RSD38: A sensible promotion/relegation discussion with Kyle Williams

Soccer writer Kyle Williams firmly believed that he and I could have a reasonable discussion about the U.S. soccer landscape and the potential for promotion/relegation within it. And we did. So there. I even found myself thinking of a new way to think about it by the end.

If you want to read even more about this, check the pro/rel page in all its words, er, glory.

us soccer, youth soccer

Finding an “a la carte” option to get more kids in soccer

How do you get more kids playing youth soccer? How do you encourage the good players to get into programs that help them maximize their potential? How do they do it in France?

For reference, check three Soccer America articles:

Bondy and the French grassroots system: Kids routinely play after school. Then they have a cheap-ish (just under $200) multisport club staffed by adult facilitators and some coaches. Much of the funding comes from a source we generally don’t have available in the USA — the government.

Secrets to the French soccer revolution: Among the noteworthy elements here — 35 French pro clubs have full-fledged academies, but kids rarely leave their home clubs before age 16.

AYSO’s Mike Hoyer: Youth soccer needs options between entry level and full travel/club commitment: He speaks in mostly vague terms aside from plugging two AYSO programs and tossing in an interesting points — kids’ time is being taken up not just by video games and other activities, but by homework.

That may seem like an odd point, but when you see kids go into high school, it’s startling to see how much is piled up. Parents have been fed metrics such as the Washington Post Challenge Index, which rewards schools for getting kids into as many intense AP courses as possible. We’re starting to see some pushback on the idea that cramming for the equivalent of 3-4 bar exams every year is the best use of teenagers’ time, and it’s about time. But that’s another rant.

The AYSO programs Hoyer mentions, AYSO Extra and AYSO United, are designed to give intermediate players more options. You’ll see the occasional AYSO program operatinIg a travel team in your local league. That’s a nice rec/travel hybrid, and we could use more creative solutions like that.

But I see ways to build on that, some of which are antithetical to the AYSO ethos of forming new teams each season for the sake of balance. I’ve kicked around some of these ideas for a few years. Others are relatively new.

No full-time travel before age 12. I’ve written about this for a while. It doesn’t rule out elite professional training and frequent “All-Star” games. It leaves open the possibility of “a la carte” models in which any interested families can get professional training and be sorted into groups that give them challenging games. It lets kids play with their neighbors and friends, as they do at Ajax and other clubs, while also giving them part-time options for advanced play with those of similar ability and aptitude. It rules out forming U11 leagues in which kids are traveling 200 miles for a league game. It also forces club’s technical staffs to look at kids who aren’t on the “A” teams.

Rec soccer that is free-play only. No commitment needed. Want to come play on Friday night or Saturday afternoon? OK — sign up, pay $10, and we’ll bring you out to a big field where we’ve organized many small-sided games and can sort players so they’re not totally overmatched or totally dominant. Maybe we’ll do the same in neighborhoods that just have one futsal court, and we’ll say beginners play at 2, slightly advanced players at 3, and you can scrimmage with our travel players at 4. For many players, this might be all they do. For some, it’ll be a gateway to a more “organized” program.

Above U12, drop the “rec”/”travel” distinction and form pyramids instead. I’ve seen some clubs that are starting to do this. At my coaching-license course this weekend, I met several parent coaches who are leading teams that are moving up from the local “developmental” travel league to the league that used to be the big dog before all these “elite” leagues formed. (Some of those “elite” leagues are, of course, not elite. I can’t understand parents who pay for their kids to be on C teams that travel out of state for “elite” league games.)

Instead of imposing tiers on teams — you’re “travel,” you’re not — just let the teams sort themselves out. If your team is dominating its “rec” league, let it move up to the next level. If your team is overmatched in “travel,” move down. Sure, professional coaches might not go for this because parents will learn that they’ve been paying $2,000/year only to find that their U14 kids aren’t at the level of the local “rec” kids. But that’ll force more change. Eventually, the tiers will be more seamless. The top teams may fire professional coaches. Lower-tier teams will stick with parents. (Though, frankly, parent coaches are often better.) Ideally, clubs will offer professional training for all, then offer a mix of pro and parent coaches on gamedays.

Along these lines …

Let teams stay together. Here’s where a well-intentioned AYSO philosophy backfires. A lot of kids, particularly those who aren’t chasing elite status, want to play with their friends. AYSO breaks up teams in the name of parity, which makes sense. But if you have a pyramid with many levels, you’ll get parity anyway.

More fluid exchanges between club teams. This might sound like the opposite of the previous point. But it’s all about giving kids options and opportunities. Clubs should always have the opportunity to let a kid try a more advanced level, even if just for a game or two. And leagues should allow it. Our local Northern Virginia “rec” league disqualifies players if they play a “travel” game just once during the season, which is utterly ridiculous.

Options. Opportunities. Maybe then we won’t lose so many kids.

 

us soccer, youth soccer

U.S. coaching education gets better, but …

I had low expectations for the new 11v11 U.S. Soccer grassroots coaching course, and getting up early Sunday morning to drag myself to Springfield didn’t help. Neither did the uninformative “Introduction to Grassroots Coaching” that replaced the helpful online F license after only a few years.

Five hours later, I wished that U.S. Soccer had done this years ago, back when I was first starting. Or I wished I had younger kids.

grassroots

Sure, I miss the old (but not that old) F license videos, which should really come back to replace the new intro. The 4v4 online module also was rather disappointing.

But when I took the 11v11 module this weekend, it clicked. I “got it.” And what I got was a new outlook on coaching.

The basic framework of a practice has changed.

Old way …

  1. A warmup activity related to the topic
  2. A small-sided game, also related to the topic
  3. An “expanded small-sided game,” also related and less comprehensible
  4. A scrimmage, also related … etc.

New way …

  1. Play
  2. Practice
  3. Play

Yes, it all relates to a topic. But we’re no longer dependent on explaining a new set of exercises to kids each week, at least in the 11v11 module.

Let’s look at it from the kids’ point of view …

Old way …

  1. What are we doing? What the heck is this?
  2. What are we doing? What the heck is this?
  3. What are we doing? What the heck is this?
  4. What are we doing? What the heck is this?

New way …

  1. Hey, we’re playing soccer, 4v4 or similar numbers. I get it.
  2. Hey, we’re playing soccer. The coach is freezing us on occasion, but I get it.
  3. Hey, we’re playing soccer again.

So the exercises don’t change that much. It’s soccer, just with different numbers per side and different coaching points to emphasize. If you take a look at these training plans on the Massachusetts Youth Soccer site, you’ll see there’s not much difference between them aside from what the coach says during practice. The U8 training plans vary a bit more, but they’re not too complicated.

That’s great. More playing. Less time explaining the purpose of the 100 cones on the field. And the coach spends less time figuring out different drills for different occasions. Just go to the Digital Coaching Center, pick your topic, get some suggested points of emphasis, add your own (perhaps based on something your team did really badly the week before) and off you go. Brilliant.

And it’s flexible. We can still do some of the old “four-phase” (warmup, small-sided, expanded small-sided, scrimmage) in the “practice” phase. You can introduce something with your favorite warmup activity — a “gates” drill if you want to sharpen their passing and receiving skills before getting into the tactics of attacking, a 3v3 before you get to the 6v5, etc.

I asked specifically about heading, prompted by a few fellow “candidates” in the course who were concerned about it. We’re supposed to limit the time we spend on heading, and I doubt many coaches were spending a whole 90-minute practice on the topic even before concussion awareness ramped up. My instructors’ suggestion — just take a few minutes out of the practice phase and toss around the ball a few different ways.

But this leads to my basic problem with every coaching course I’ve done — new way, old way or older way …

Is this really a course for grassroots/recreational coaches?

In fairness, a lot of the people in the class had ambitions beyond rec league. To get to the D license and progress up the ladder from there, you have to take three of the eight available grassroots modules, and the in-person 11v11 module must be one of them. (If you’ve played three years in a top-tier pro league, however they choose to define that, you can skip to the C.)

And the parent/professional line seems to be blurring more than I’ve seen in the past. The course’s host, Braddock Road (hey, Vienna — can I be reimbursed?), is moving its parent-coached teams up from the developmental/recreational leagues up to the NCSL. A lot of the parents in the room were anxious to take the D as soon as possible. (Apparently, it’s more accessible for parent coaches than it was in the past when I griped about it.) Maybe some clubs have realized they don’t need to hire pros to be on the sideline for every “travel” game any more.

Also, some parent coaches are really into it. Maybe a bit too much. One coach said he does his practice plans based in part on what he sees in scouting his opponents. At U9. I’ve only seen three distinct styles of play at U9.

  1. Alexandria Soccer: We’re going to complete a couple hundred passes each game, and unlike Spain, we’re also going to score because the typical U9 defense and goalkeeper can’t cope. If we concede goals to a big fast forward, so be it.
  2. Northern Virginia Soccer Club: We’re going to beat the crap out of you. Literally. Not like U9 refs are going to blow the whistle on most of these fouls, much less give us yellow cards. Then by U12, we’ll be ready to identify your top player and kick him out of the game just after halftime, then reduce your team to barely enough players to finish the game.
  3. Kids playing soccer. They’re kids. They’re going to do what kids do, and what the coach says is just a small factor in what they do.

But there are two reasons why this “grassroots” module still doesn’t quite meet the needs of a parent coach, even though it’s dropped some of the insistence on incomprehensible practice planning that the E and old D license had.

plan

1. We’re not learning how to teach technique.

Sure, at U14, it’s less of an issue than it is at U8. But we’re still getting some players with less experience or players who may move on to travel once they fix a couple of holes in their game. We’re still not getting that.

Granted, former elite players will always have an advantage here. My fellow rec coach who played with Julie Foudy at Stanford will know more about technique (and tactics, and probably a lot of things) than I ever will. No coaching class is likely to make up that gap. But I’m still surprised that, in all the resources and reading we’re given, no one emphasizes the best way to strike a ball, receive a ball, etc.

Heading is especially problematic. Maybe U12 rec coaches don’t need to know the finer points of dribbling and passing, given the lack of potential elite players in their ranks. But heading is an actual safety issue. Shouldn’t we learn how to do it and teach it? (Sure, I learned it when I was a youth player, but that was 35 years ago. Times have changed.)

So my constructive criticism for USSF would be simple. Give us a few videos on technique. In the in-person session, maybe spend 15 minutes on it while we’re on the field.

2. A lot of the information still seemed unrealistic for recreational coaches.

One of our instructors noted that it often takes a year for lessons to sink in. Travel coaches and elite coaches may have their teams for that long. Rec coaches usually do not. If they’re in AYSO, the teams are broken apart and reformed each year.

(Maybe that’s more of a criticism of the AYSO “redistribute the teams” model, but that’s another rant.)

Other notes from the session …

  1. We no longer use neutral players — say, a 5v5 with two players available on the wings who’ll pass back to whichever team passed it to them. Not “game-like.”
  2. Also not “game-like” — rondos. We didn’t talk about these at all. (I should point out that the Massachusetts U8 training plans above had a few things that also weren’t really “game-like.” Are rondos or neutral players any less “game-like” than having multiple goals on each side of the field?)
  3. Dynamic stretching is built into the first “play” phase. Basically, let them play for a few minutes, and let that be the primary warmup. (Personally, I plan to tell them not to go too hard at first.) Then pause, do your Frankensteins and barn-door swings, then get back to it. Makes sense. In my running days, I knew plenty of runners who’d jog a bit before stretching. Stretching a cold muscle incurs the old snapping-rubber-band analogy. And yes, you can use the “FIFA 11” warmup, which is coincidentally the only soccer video game in my house.
  4. We now “freeze” the action only in the practice phase. In the first play phase, we coach over the flow of the game and sometimes pull players aside. The last play phase is more like a game — maybe you’d pull a player aside, but you’re more likely to shout things over the flow. (Or not shout, if you’re stick with a tiny practice space like I am.)

So on the whole, this is an improvement. I’ve talked a lot about what parent coaches need, including a full presentation at an NSCAA convention. This gets us partway.

It’s unfortunate in a way that U.S. Soccer needed to do such a drastic revision. It’s difficult to feel the previous lessons weren’t wasted. But the good news is that any changes in the future should just be tweaks rather than a teardown.

 

podcast, youth soccer

RSD37: Part 2 of the Shoeless Soccer conversation

Forget the long grass. Forget the complex drills. Shin guards optional.

That’s the advice from Shoeless Soccer co-author Nathan Richardson, a coach and one-time director of coaching when he’s not busy with his day job as a professor of Spanish literature. (We did not discuss whether Man of La Mancha, a musical in which I once played drums, is faithful to the source material.)

If you missed Part 1, please check it out. If you’ve already listened to Part 1, here’s Part 2:

 

podcast, youth soccer

RSD37: Shoeless Soccer author Nathan Richardson on taking youth soccer off the long grass

Nathan Richardson, co-author of Shoeless Soccer: Fixing the System and Winning the World Cup (which I reviewed here), joins the podcast this week to talk about the radical yet somewhat globally accepted ideas in his book. Basically, instead of turning soccer into an expensive coach-driven activity, why not let kids learn by playing? And maybe on hard surfaces so they’ll learn to control the ball instead of booting it?

This conversation should give us all some ideas for how to reform youth soccer, even if you don’t agree with all of them, and it should put the term “rec mindset” to bed once and for all. We all start as rec players, and in many cases, that’s where we (well, not me) learn the things that make us better players down the road.

We ran rather long, so this will be a two-parter. (Here’s Part 2.)

Here’s Part 1:

 

Practice plans mentioned in the podcast are on the Massachusetts Youth Soccer site.

Thanks as always to Patreon supporters, and keep an eye out for RSD merchandise available soon.

Patreon supporters are:

Keith Bundy
John Stewart
Dave Russell
Jason McConnell
Tim Stanton
Bill Beane
Judith Cavill
Taylor Sorrels
Robert Hay
Rich Heironimus
Armando Diaz
Jeff Clarke

world soccer

Best World Cup ever? Three reasons why it wasn’t

The just-concluded World Cup is being hailed as many things — great, the greatest in a while, the greatest ever.

It was certainly unique, as Soccer America’s Paul Kennedy says: an unusually high number of own goals, an unusually low number of red cards and fouls. (Granted, you could attribute the latter to the notion that holding is now basically legal.)

At The Ringer, Ryan O’Hanlon argues that this World Cup was the best in decades because of its unpredictability: “There was something so refreshing and so thrilling about sitting down each morning and not having any clue about what might play out.”

At my former employer USA TODAY, Martin Rogers was impressed: “(T)here was a treasure trove of treats to keep a worldwide audience occupied and wove a gripping narrative over the course of a month and more.”

All good points, as is the lack of scoreless draws, but here’s the counterargument I’d make:

1. Sorry to be Debbie Downer, but now is simply not the time to normalize Russia. 2022 probably won’t be a good time to normalize Qatar, either, unless we get proper investigations of the people who are literally working migrant workers to death and unless Qatar liberalizes its LGBTQ policies (among other things). We’re not going to have a World Cup worth rooting for until 2026. (Maybe not even then, the way things are going in the USA and Mexico right now.)

2. Defense now has the upper hand (literally — again, refs, please blow the whistle when a defender has someone in a bear hug) over possession soccer, resulting in few goals from the run of play. O’Hanlon’s piece at The Ringer actually reinforces that point, showing how France succeeded with a defensive mindset and managed to score four times against Croatia while barely possessing the ball in the final third.

You could argue that’s a fun thing to watch — Mexico’s blistering counterattack was consistently thrilling — but we don’t want soccer to become a sport in which you only need to watch the counters and the set pieces. And seeing Spain flail helplessly against the Russian defense was one of the most frustrating experiences of the World Cup, especially given Point 1 (normalizing Russia / giving Putin more time in the spotlight). Also sad — Harry Kane was brilliant on set pieces but, like his England teammates, simply couldn’t find the net from the run of play.

3. Maybe too much unpredictability isn’t such a good thing. The World Cup is supposed to reward the best teams. When the group-stage chaos left us with a lopsided bracket, a lot of terrific teams (Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Mexico) were dismissed from the action all too soon.

We did end up with a worthy champion — and, though Croatia didn’t win a knockout-round game in regulation, a worthy finalist.

The atmosphere was terrific throughout. And this Cup broke so many records that the Guinness site had to create a long roundup to account for them all. But the USA still holds the attendance records:

1994: 3,568,567 total, 68,626 average

2018: 3,031,768 total, 47,371 average

North America will break that record in 2026 — at least the total, given the expansion.

Let’s hope national teams have learned how to score from the run of play by then.