The end of year USSF evalations are out.

Kudos to FC Dallas!!

Below is an excerpt from Soccer America article discussing the evals.

That they’re being compared to the likes of Barcelona, it’s no surprise that the most commongrades on Player Development (PD) and Style of Player are 2 to 3 stars, with a handful of 3 1/2s. The highest ratings given in those two categories were 4s, which FC Dallas got in both, Real Salt Lake in Style and the New York Red Bulls in PD. (D.C. United rated 3 1/2 in both categories, ranking it second-highest in those two categories combined behind FC Dallas.)

There were 16 clubs, in addition to FC Dallas and D.C. United, that earned at least 3 stars in both PDand Style: Albertson SC (N.Y.), Arsenal FC (Calif.), Colorado Rapids, Cosmos West (now merged with Chivas USA), Columbus Crew, Derby County Wolves (now Crew Academy Wolves), FC Westchester (NY), Houston Dynamo, Internationals (Ohio), Kendall SC (Miami), Los Angeles Galaxy, PA Classics (Pa.), PDA (N.J.), Real So Cal, Solar Chelsea (Texas) and Scott Gallagher Missouri.

Interesting point in the article regarding evals was that they hoped the US would eventually reach the no cost to play system that Europe currently has. Could be a huge factor on how FCD got their 4 rating?

Didn't hurt, but if you read the entire article it breaks down the percentages of weight given to each category - funding was much lower than style of play etc.

The quotes I gave say specifically that FCD rec'd 4 stars for style of play and player development.

Don't forget Smurfie, at the USSF level, the Texans are free, too. They got four stars for funding, but only two stars for style of play.

You can also get the PDF of all the USSF DA club evaluations at ussoccer.com under the academy section.

It is great that USSF is rating style of play higher then speed, athleticism, and winning % which is the focus of most competitive clubs staffing and recruiting programs and coaching goals. Player development and style of play are the most important success factors for longer term success for the USA in competing in the game of soccer globally.

Player Development does not equal plays on USSF, premier academy, or top level club team.

Style of play does not equal plays on USSF, premier academy, or top level team.

In reality most teams are not developing players and their style of play is direct with limited ability to control and possess the ball. AKA kickball. Put a team like this under alot of pressure and they fall apart.

Make sure you understand what it means when it states "Player Development" and "Style of Play". For whom and what purpose is the development for. Read an article on ESPN yesterday about the stuggles lately for AC Milan in the European Cup tourney stating they cannot compete with Barcelona, Real Madrid, etc. because they do not have the "athletic, faster" outside players. The article stated they were used to playing down the middle of the field and once they lost players like Kaka, they lost to more athletic,faster teams.

Most clubs at the highest level in US, like USSF Premier academy clubs, have coaches that play to the strength of their team. If there is a majority that can play a slow tempo "Barcelona, Brazil" style of play, then the coach will focus on that. If the team doesnt have a majority, then the coach has to adapt to what they do have and change the style of play to fit the players.

I know everyone loves the Barcelona, Brazil style because it is pretty and is what has been successful in the UEFA Cup and in LIGA for the last few years, but it has been a while since Brazil has been to the finals of a World Cup and Barcelona isnt in the UEFA Cup finals every year. Man U has done pretty well lately with direct play while Arsenal is struggling with the pass friendly style.

FC Dallas looks great with their style and are becoming successful but Texans have also won many National Championships with theirs.

Everyone seems to be in love with the Barcelona style of play. The reason for their success has less to do with their style. The key to their success is that the bulk of their attacking players have been together since their youth days.

Which to a lesser degree explains Spain's success in the WC.

It's also worth noting that they also have the "athletes" (especially in the backline) that enable their "flair" players to get forward and create more.

Successful teams are comprised of the right mixture of attacking prowess and the 'athletic' ballwinning/defensive players.

Arsenal's struggles stem from the fact that they either won't or can't adapt their style of play given the tactical situation. That and they lack defensive cohesion.

The reason FC Dallas receives higher marks is simple. They are at least attempting to develop players to be future professionals. While most of the non MLS DA teams are strictly playing for results. Being "athletic" is necessary in the modern game, no question. But it isn't a substitute for technique and a footballing brain.

Playing direct should be a tactic...not an overall strategy.

As a country, we seem to be falling short of developing players that are technical, tactically smart AND exceptional athletically.

The vast majority of DA teams aren't doing anything drastically different than they were before. Old habits are hard to break.

It is hypocritical on USSF's part that they preach development yet part of their criteria for admission (to the DA)is based on results at regional and national level.

Things do seem to be getting better. But I attribute that to the additional training the players are getting.

But until we start training players 4 and 5 days a week (with heavy emphasis on technique) at age 14 and 15 we will continue to lag behind.

If your first touch lands in another state it doesn't matter how strong or fast you are.

Regarding player development, two things need to happen:

1. USSF needs to develop a player development program that is focused on the individual player and not farm it out to a select few clubs. Plenty of elite players in other areas that are geographically isolated from DA clubs. Divide the country up into 'districts' and bring the training to the player.

Kind of like ODP...except done correctly.

That way, it is less of a sacrifice to the player and their family. Try to work it so that no player has to travel more than 2 hours to for this training.

2. MLS,as well as USL/NASL clubs should set up "residency" programs that are fully funded by the clubs. RSL Arizona has one but it is still "pay to play". Only one I am familiar with that resembles what I am suggesting is Vancouver Whitecaps. And they set it up when they were still a USL entity.

Bradenton, by and large, is a joke. Getting rid of that money pit would go a long way into building a true player development program.

One that will actually reach more players and make a much bigger impact.

HEY- LAIMPORT,

YOU'RE ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!

ontherightside wrote:Didn't hurt, but if you read the entire article it breaks down the percentages of weight given to each category - funding was much lower than style of play etc.

The quotes I gave say specifically that FCD rec'd 4 stars for style of play and player development.

Don't forget Smurfie, at the USSF level, the Texans are free, too. They got four stars for funding, but only two stars for style of play.

Have you seen them play? 2 stars is too many for that style of play

FCD? or Texans?

Not sure which one you were critizing.

OTRS, I believe GO has criticized both.

Laimport wrote:Everyone seems to be in love with the Barcelona style of play. The reason for their success has less to do with their style. The key to their success is that the bulk of their attacking players have been together since their youth days.

Which to a lesser degree explains Spain's success in the WC.

It's also worth noting that they also have the "athletes" (especially in the backline) that enable their "flair" players to get forward and create more.

Successful teams are comprised of the right mixture of attacking prowess and the 'athletic' ballwinning/defensive players.

Arsenal's struggles stem from the fact that they either won't or can't adapt their style of play given the tactical situation. That and they lack defensive cohesion.

The reason FC Dallas receives higher marks is simple. They are at least attempting to develop players to be future professionals. While most of the non MLS DA teams are strictly playing for results. Being "athletic" is necessary in the modern game, no question. But it isn't a substitute for technique and a footballing brain.

Playing direct should be a tactic...not an overall strategy.

As a country, we seem to be falling short of developing players that are technical, tactically smart AND exceptional athletically.

The vast majority of DA teams aren't doing anything drastically different than they were before. Old habits are hard to break.

It is hypocritical on USSF's part that they preach development yet part of their criteria for admission (to the DA)is based on results at regional and national level.

Things do seem to be getting better. But I attribute that to the additional training the players are getting.

But until we start training players 4 and 5 days a week (with heavy emphasis on technique) at age 14 and 15 we will continue to lag behind.

If your first touch lands in another state it doesn't matter how strong or fast you are.

I agree with you to some extent but disagree on a few items. I think that by the time the kids are 14 to 15 it is generally too late to develope the elite ability to play at the top level. I saw an interview with Arsen Wenger (coach of Arsenal) and he basically said that if a kid does not have his first touch and skill already proficient by the time he is 13 or 14, there is little hope for him. Soccer is not like other sports and it takes years and years of touches on the ball to build up the good first touch under pressure. I would suggest the kids need one of two things:

1) practice 4 to 5 time a week starting around age 9 or

2) develop a culture in America where kids are playing soccer in the backyard and neighborhood fields 4 to 5 days a week.

The focus is not on structured training but on how much they get. The kids in other countries get more touches and reps on the ball because they play everyday in the streets and fields. The American kids play two to three times a week in the practice with the paid coach.

It can be done here and you have probably seen it in kids on your own team. The ones that spend time with the ball and practicing on their own are the ones that shine. You cannot practice two times a week, play a game on the weekend and expect to develop the touch required to play at the top level.

I would also suggest the bashing of the stronger, faster and bigger kid is done too often. All things being equal, bigger, stronger, faster will win over small and slow any day. It will even win over small and skilled if the big, fast, strong kid is skilled as well.

ontherightside wrote:FCD? or Texans?

Not sure which one you were critizing.

Texans. My eyes are still burning from the Dallas cup

finish1 wrote:OTRS, I believe GO has criticized both.

I don't believe I have criticized FCD's academy program at all. I am a big fan of them and think it's definitely heading in the right direction. Now if they could only get the rest of the club on board.

Go, point taken. Thanks for clarifying.

Running, I agree with most of your overall view and would add the flip side of your final statement is that we overlook smaller players too easily in the US. I would argue that a quick medium sized team with shape around the ball can defeat a BFS team that runs straight at the goal. As an example of the latter, please see the USMNT. For the former, Barcelona. Size and speed vs shape and skill.

Coaches are also overlooking the smaller players that won't always be that small...They don't always get on top teams/ODP, etc. on their first try, but by the time they are in high school, they are studs.

The problem with Teams like FC Dallas, Texans and others they play smoke and mirrors soccer. When Arena’s coached the USA team he used this type of soccer, he felt his team could beat anyone. In fact, a very typical American performance under Arena, who produced a squad that was capable of playing mesmerizing soccer one day, then confounding even the most die-hard fans with execrable performances the next. Arena's admittedly impressive 71-30-29 lifetime record is somewhat illusory; it obscures the fact that under Arena, the men were unable to shed their inability to win big matches in Europe or in Mexico City arguably the places where U.S. soccer still has the most to prove. The differences were clear: When Arena got that lucky bounce in 2002, he wore it as if it were armor. And when his luck ran out, he was left to blame others.

Same happens here with the big clubs, they select the fastest, biggest and most athletic players….and that’s great against other teams using the same type of play. The problem is when they play against more skilled players and teams during the Dallas Cup and other major tournaments most players and teams are outmatched.
Unless soccer becomes intergraded into the public school system as football, baseball and basketball is done where every kid in America will get a fair shot, soccer can’t even be suggested as an elite sport in the USA if only a few select kids will have the resources to play select.Let's not talk about the foreign players (free rides) most of these clubs find,while not finding that type of talent locally, but that's a whole other issue.

I have nothing against club soccer, but our ”pay for play” system will never result in USA being an elite soccer country, but only putting money into clubs bank accounts.I personally believe the best talent is yet to be found in America and it's not all in select soccer.

Execrable? Score a goal for integrating obscure words into a valid opinion. Play on...

Soccerinsanity wrote:Coaches are also overlooking the smaller players that won't always be that small...They don't always get on top teams/ODP, etc. on their first try, but by the time they are in high school, they are studs.

Have to disagree here. ODP does put many smaller players on and perhaps there is where some of the rap against it comes from. They were overlooked by the big clubs for BSFs and thus considered by many to not be top players. Vato good points.

I'm nt bashing bigger, faster, stronger players per se. It's just that in the youth game, this tends to be the foundation for building teams. The problem with that is the relative age effect.

At 16 or 17 the age effect is diminished. Most boys have reached their adult height at that point and are beginning to 'fill out'.

Steven gerrard was a late bloomer physically. But his academy coaches knew he would be a first teamer because of his footballing brain, technical ability and competitive drive. Essentially he was always playing up.

I've seen the interview with Wenger where he compares developing players to building a house. The technical side is the foundation. The athletic ability is the frame. Then comes the tactical and finally the desire and mental toughness required to become a pro.

What we call a work ethic.

Even in Europe most kids don't train 5 days a week with their teams 4 and 5 days a week until they enter a pro team's academy system. It varies by country but generally they don't train every day until the teenage years.

Of course the kids over there are still getting touches on the ball every day. Whether training with their teams or not. That's the difference.

While training more is an obvious solution, however, it is the type of training that ultimately helps develop players. My point was that at 13-15 is when the "sharpening" of technique is perfected.

Here, at U13/14 too much training time in my opinion is spent on fitness and tactics.

If a player isn't getting 200-300 touches minimum in training, then far too much time is being wasted on other things.

European society has changed too over the last couple of decades. Kids don't play in the streets as much as they did a generation ago. Much like it is here, everything is much more structured.

Another problem, especially here, is that a lot of kids play multiple sports and otherwise have too many choices. I don't have anything against playing multiple sports, but, you can't put the soccer ball away completely for 3-6 months at a time.

The term 'academy' has been bastardized in the states where soccer is concerned. What we really need are more "soccer schools" where the game is taught in a true academic fashion. Every player gets the same level of instruction. With little to no emphasis on putting together teams for the purposes of achieving league and tournament results.

The more advanced players will be put into training and competitive venues where they are challenged more and are given the freedom to be creative players without fear of failure.

Yes, at some point you would form teams and teach tactics and competing for results. But it sure as hell wouldn't be at U10! Maybe not even U14.

Think about it. If it was really all about high level competition, structured leagues, etc. then the US would be much further along than it is now. We have the numbers. We have the right soccer athletes.

What we don't have are the right combination of technically savvy, tactically aware players.

We also need to create environments where kids can go and play without adult interference. More 3v3, indoor, futsal and a lot more pickup games in the parks and at school.

Coaches have very, very little to do with developing players. When the majority understand this reality, you will see a major shift away from the "pay to play", team building system we have now.

finish1 wrote:Running, I agree with most of your overall view and would add the flip side of your final statement is that we overlook smaller players too easily in the US. I would argue that a quick medium sized team with shape around the ball can defeat a BFS team that runs straight at the goal. As an example of the latter, please see the USMNT. For the former, Barcelona. Size and speed vs shape and skill.

I agree that there are some smaller, more technical kids that get overlooked as they are coming up, but I think the only blame for that is the parents. For Example:

1. A coach is coaching a U11 team about to go select and he has tryouts. He sees some great little technical players and some big, strong, fast kids that play physical and put the ball in the net. Overall, the best way to go for the long run would be with the technical players that can develop into the disciplined team with shape that possesses the ball. The problem is, if he goes with those kids, they get run off the ball at U11 and win very few games. They wind up in the bottom of the Plano league the parents revolt becaue they are not winning. What is a coach to do.

2. In situation number two, he takes the BSF kids and qualifies D1 Classic, his teams play Dallas cup and win tournaments and parents come on here saying how great the team and the coach are.

Until the parents are OK with their kids playing on a plano, arlington team but showing signs of playing pretty soccer, the coaches have no choice but to go with what wins now.

my2cents wrote:

Soccerinsanity wrote:Coaches are also overlooking the smaller players that won't always be that small...They don't always get on top teams/ODP, etc. on their first try, but by the time they are in high school, they are studs.

Have to disagree here. ODP does put many smaller players on and perhaps there is where some of the rap against it comes from. They were overlooked by the big clubs for BSFs and thus considered by many to not be top players. Vato good points.

With all this talk of small kids versus BSF, what exactly is considered BSF? My kids are 02 and 04 and one is bigger than others his age and one is average. I dont think either will be above 6 feet tall.

My 02 plays for Odyssey and a few months ago the Odyssey 96's were scrimmaging against a Solar team and we were practicing next to them. I think both of those teams were Classic league D1 teams.

The Dads of our 02 were watching the scrimmage and we were amazed at how big most of the players were. Particulary Solar had some defenders that were bigger than me and I am 6 foot 180. They were huge and fast. Odyssey had some kids that were small but all were very fast. They had one kid that looked like he could start at running back in college right now.

Not sure my kid will be near that big when he is 15 or 16.

BSF is more age relative at youth level. That's the problem. It makes much less impact when they are adults.

I agree with running's analysis. Parents are a big part of the problem. Their focus is on little johnnyrocketlegs getting on the "best" team. So, ignorance is the main problem.

However, the coaches do know better. Or maybe I'm giving them too much credit.

My son was fortunate enough to play at U11/12 for a coach that spent 90% of training time on technical skills. They didn't win more than 3 or 4 games the whole first year. The second year they were maybe a .500 team.

Yeah, he put up with some irate parents. Still does. But the players that applied themselves are much better on the ball than the nascent u11/12 "studs". When they catch up physically they will experience a slingshot effect.

Nothing wrong with being "BSF". But it's rare in this country to see a player that has those athletic qualities and is also very good technically and tactically.

Young players that are physically mature at the youngest ages rarely end up playing at the highest levels. For two reasons. First, they are overly reliant on their physical traits. Second, they are pushed by coaches to play and win using their physical gifts.

They experience stunted technical development. And also usually don't develop the game intelligence required.

This is the main reason my son has always played up. And was an impact player on good but not great teams. Now he's playing his age and is dominant in all aspects. A more 'complete' player.

Sprint wrote:

my2cents wrote:

Soccerinsanity wrote:Coaches are also overlooking the smaller players that won't always be that small...They don't always get on top teams/ODP, etc. on their first try, but by the time they are in high school, they are studs.

Have to disagree here. ODP does put many smaller players on and perhaps there is where some of the rap against it comes from. They were overlooked by the big clubs for BSFs and thus considered by many to not be top players. Vato good points.

With all this talk of small kids versus BSF, what exactly is considered BSF? My kids are 02 and 04 and one is bigger than others his age and one is average. I dont think either will be above 6 feet tall.

My 02 plays for Odyssey and a few months ago the Odyssey 96's were scrimmaging against a Solar team and we were practicing next to them. I think both of those teams were Classic league D1 teams.

The Dads of our 02 were watching the scrimmage and we were amazed at how big most of the players were. Particulary Solar had some defenders that were bigger than me and I am 6 foot 180. They were huge and fast. Odyssey had some kids that were small but all were very fast. They had one kid that looked like he could start at running back in college right now.

Not sure my kid will be near that big when he is 15 or 16.

The Solar team was a 95 team so you are talking about high school sophs, juniors and maybe a couple seniors. At those ages the whole size things evens out quite a bit. The " college running back" is certainly a stout soccer player but hardly the former at 5'8" 170 lbs. BSF as it is usuually referenced here is a player that is dominant because he uses his bigger size, superior strength and speed to dominate play as opposed to using superior skill and knowledge. At the age you were watching all those players had superior skills but some also had good size. No worries for you though as those coaches will always tell your bigger one not to rely on his size.