Simon Ireland - Part II
The Direction of US & Global Women’s Soccer
“Simon, let’s talk about current development trends in women’s football and the direction it’s heading both globally and within the US.”
You’ve been coaching womens and mens football for many years and have been instrumental in helping grown the game here in the USA from setting up clubs to running camps and tours for grassroots and elite players. You were, in your own right, a top and highly respected player and considered by many as one of the best players in the USA before the MLS and declined to play in the MLS.
We will interview you again on that topic another time because you have a lot to share (see “Simon Ireland - Part I, Perspectives on Youth Player Development” blog post), but let’s discuss the women’s game in this interview. You were coaching women’s football when others wouldn’t. So in this respect you were a pioneer. You have trained and coached a lot of top players in the USA and had much success. Your sister-in -law played for Liverpool FC and you started your own youth club. You created training camps in London for female youth players in the 90's when there were no teams for them to play on and even before there were not many top flight English teams. You also arranged to play the top english clubs on tour with USA players, so you’ve seen more than others when it comes to the evolution of women’s football and player development.
Q: Are there more/better players today in women’s football than when you started coaching? Any Martas and Akers out there or coming through?
A: I haven't seen any but if you're talking about the USA then I think that answer is probably ‘No’. There are more good players and more players in general but say this about the mens game too. Like Mia Hamm, Akers and Marta I dont think there will ever be any more Ronaldo’s, Zidane’s, Maldini, Maradona’s. Van Bastens, Cruyffs, Messi, Pele’s and Puskas type players in the future.
A: Why not?
A: Life has changed. Because players developed in a different environment back then. Players had no apps phones, tracking devices or social media and analysis and showcase or scouting. They developed organically; at home, in schoolyards and streets or local clubs and in the neighborhood. Only the very top got scouted and selected. Great players developed on their own, not at an Academy or pro. youth club. Clubs used to have a 1st and 2nd steam and not even a youth team-top young players would train and play with older players and learn quickly. These days there are more specialized players in terms of structured positions but it's well known there aren't as many artisans and entertaining players. I worry about the game in general as an entertainment. I'm not naive that professional football (and college) is a business and the risks and rewards are great but in the end its still an entertainment and the consumer may choose to switch their viewing options and loyalties if its not entertaining. With so much media coverage the quality of the game has been diluted. Players don't get the same amount of rest between games and squads are larger. The best players simply cannot and should not play every game. The game is accessible to all now but that doesn't mean that it improves the quality. In the past the top players made it to the top because recognition was only for being the very best. Now, average players are financially very well compensated and get rewarded for poor performances. I don't think that will last, so womens football should be careful and think about the type of players that will attract spectators and fans in the long term. The game needs more Akers, and Martas but i worry about this and I think the game in general will not have the entertainment value that it once had, especially when there are so many more options these days. Coaching licenses focus on systems and structure. Technique isnt taught in these courses and they are geared towards coaching advanced players and not developing technique and creativity in players at younger ages. So everyone now can be a coach which is simply not possible in reality but this again is commercially driven by federations as a significant source of revenue as they are focused on team management and education and performance, not individual players development. There are obvious benefits of child safety and wellness and injury prevention etc but this is a different subject. More coaches does not mean more, better players.
Q: Are you against technology for helping players and coaches advance their knowledge of the game?
A: Not at all. Technology can be used to enhance performance but why don't young players study great players movements or watch old classic games? Most players and parents are turned into consumers watching their own performance, comparing stats and posting on social media for social recognition. They have become narcissistic consumers. Stop wasting time watching yourself on a video unless you have someone who can truly help you break down the material to actually help you develop. Take a look at the best players, emulate them and go get a ball to self teach. And youth coaches should start thinking about the long term outlook and development of players beyond their youth careers. Start coaching players and not teams. Teams dont get recruited to national teams and colleges. Players do. So what if you dont win a local league or win a championship. Put your best players up a year or 2. Have them play more small sided games rather than tournament after tournament 'fundraisers'. Clubs are afraid not to do what other clubs do in fear of losing players or not attracting players. If i was a college recruiter, the first thin i would look at is 'is this kid playing up'; 'what kind of daily environment are the in with their coaches/club;" and do they play and train with boys; and are they playing in all formats (small sided as well as big games). I want players to come to my college program that dont need me to remind them to self practice and stay in good shape in the off season. Thats who i would be picking. Kids who are passionate about the game and want to continue beyond college. My 'interview' with them would end there.
Q: People may be confused by that statement. More players, means more talent? Or is this a myth? Please explain.
A: Just because there are more registered players playing it doesn't mean there are more more better players. You aren't a great driver if you own a car or have a DL. More facilities and refs and coaches and apps don't translate into more better players.
Q: So are there more average players?
A: Yes, maybe because they are fitter and somewhat better organized. But this doesn't mean they are better players. In contrast, It is great for these youth leagues and their 'owners' who do not really promote excellence, but they do generate a lot more revenue through more participation', but this does not translate into better players.
Q: How has the women’s game improved worldwide?
A: The men’s game 30 years ago saw average teams getting results against top teams internationally and at club level due to improved fitness and tactical organization. Recently the Czech women’s team who tied England 0:0 after England beat USA this past week. The Czechs also tied US last year in the US in a similar way. Teams like Czech Republic can stay organized and compete for the entire match nowadays. But that doesn't make them special and it doesn't mean to say that they have great players. It's also telling of England and US that they can’t break down teams like Czech Republic. You need dribblers and technicians to do this.
It does mean that the women’s game is becoming more competitive worldwide. Look at the 20 nominees for the Ballon D'Or today. Only 3 players were nominated from the US and with all due respect to her, Alex Morgan is 33 years old now, so this is her last World Cup and Macario was 12 when she came from Brazil. 4 play in England, 7 play in France, 5 in Spain, 2 in Germany and only 2 in the US. 14 of these players are European.
Q: How did top women’s players develop when they didn't have pro leagues to play in?
A: Much the same way as other players did when they didn't have avenues and pathways. Find a local club or team or play in whatever competition was available. Sometimes that meant playing co-ed or on boys teams like so many did. Some of the best players in this area played with and against us and trained with us to sharpen their game. We had many national teams and college players come and train with us and then go back to their colleges and national teams. Sam Kerr (Australia & Chelsea) didn't play soccer until 13 years of age, Brazilian Marta played with men and boys and Macario only started playing with girls when she came to the USA from Brazil at age 12 and Canadian St Claire played 'up' on a U7 team as a 4 year old and on a U14 team as an 11 year old and boys baseball. De Vanna said that she slept with her soccer ball and spent much of her time as a youth playing soccer in the street with her brother as a kid. Mia Hamm started at 5 years of age and played Jr High on the boys team.
Q: So where did the special players came from before the women’s game became professionalized?
A: They played up; they played co-ed; they played vs boys and men; they self-practiced more. Often on very poor facilities. Good players found a way to improve and for women if they feel that playing with and against men sharpens their game then thats their choice. You see basketball players from NBA playing in city leagues in the off season and Zidane would go back to the streets to play with the local kids or Van Persie back to the 'cage' in Rotterdam while he was a pro. There is a Japanese player playing in the mens 2nd division now. Game pace requires the need for a better first touch and good decision making. I did this as a youth player- I played against men which was out of my depth but i learned quickly. It's all about what makes you better and benefits you as a player. If thats ZIdane asking Makalele to play 1 v 1 against him after practice because he is a great defender and relentless then thats something he feels he needs to sharpen his game.
Q: Using the same logic, the Academy system in men’s football as a recruiting platform isn't useful for player development - is this what you’re saying?
A: Yes, that’s correct - academy systems aren't development platforms - they are recruiting, branding platforms; very few players make it to the first teams from academies. In the past, players lacked equipment, lacked facilities and the ones they did have were poor; they didn't have a ball each! they used smaller balls or anything they could kick; the shoes were heavier and balls were heavier; clothes were soggy and heavy when wet. so how did so many great players come out of those environments? people should hear about the Wayne Rooney story as 16 year old when he was at the back of the 'chippy' paying against the wall with his mates after scoring ‘that’ goal vs arsenal. 1/3 - 2/3rd's of European squads are foreign players. it’s an obvious and acknowledged fact that having good facilities doesn't make for good players. the best players in the game grow up with many obstacles to overcome - bumpy fields, with varying level of grass, or on turf, or concrete using a variety of balls - everything from tennis balls to regular soccer balls.
Q: The US Women’s National Team recently lost to England. You saw that coming. Please explain.
A: It was only a matter of time before the emerging programs in the traditional and emerging 'football cultures' would close the gap with the US and would do so very quickly. Don't underestimate the African, Asian and South American counties too- there is more parity now than ever. The European countries in particular will use their football culture and history and significant resources to compete with the US and usurp their control at the national team level. When the game adds more girls/women (volume) participation in the European countries, I do not see the US at the top for too long. There is simply more history, passion, knowledge in those countries that they align to serve the greater vision while the US has a system that is geared to the college game which can not compete with the full pro. systems of Europe. In future I see the best young US players headed to Europe to play professionally, if they can, right out of high school.
Q: Has the US gotten worse, maintained the same level, or has the rest of the world improved?
A: The rest of world are not sitting on their hands and it’s not as if they don't have the resources and the wisdom and history and knowledge. It is a matter of time. Every young football girl in England would have known England were playing USA last week, but curiously, not vice-versa.
Q: How are other countries able to compete with US Women’s National Team now?
A: Fitness is a huge key to parity. It remains the biggest factor which evens the playing field in the emerging womens game. In other words, don’t try and compete on a national level until you’ve got your fundamental fitness in place, while building on the youth technical immersion years…
Q: Why has US women’s soccer not improved?
A: US may still win the World Cup but so could 10 other teams on a good day but it's not an indicator of the best individual talent. On the mens side the World Cup wont feature the likes of Mane or Salah, Haaland, Diaz, Odegaard, Mahrez, Aubameyang none of whom are playing in the World Cup this year.-some of the worlds best teams and players dont always play in the World Cup. In the womens game we are seeing more parity for the reasons mentioned so the World Cup success isnt always indicative of a nations quality or talent.
Q: Can we expect to see a better World Cup in Australia and New Zealand in 2023 than the recent EUROS in England.
A: No, I don’t think so because the quality of the teams in the first rounds of the World Cup aren't as good. The delta between the top teams and bottom teams in the World Cup is greater than in the EUROS. There are now far too many teams in the World Cup ! I wish people would open their eyes. It is a made for TV event, it has nothing to do with the improvement of the game or the players.
Q: US players are known for their athletic qualities but we know it’s not enough to dominate at the highest levels. With so many players playing in the USA why are there no technical and physical players coming through?
A: The US has an interesting perspective on many things sport. First: you must win to be considered good. Second: it doesnt seem to matter how you win. Third: few seem to want to spend the time developing talented intelligent football artists. Fourth: there is so much money in the youth game here, that the system is built on recruiting to win now, and not (as I said in third) the longer term Individual player development.
Q: So where will the improvement come from for the US?
A: The US (women’s) must understand that dozens of countries have a richer, more storied football history than theirs and they able to respect that once these teams are supported socially financially and knowledge resource can be applied and pointed towards womens football that there may be no way back. Youth soccer in this country isn't all of a sudden going to start worrying that the US isn't competing internationally. Look at the boys side of the game. You can’t say the game has improved. Where are the unique personalities such as, Perez, Donovan, Dempsey? Pulisic did not develop here. He is not a product of the US football system. US Men’s National Team player Christopher Sullivan and many others had successful careers oversees before the MLS began. They should be listening to him and those like him asking what he learned and how it improved his game. The domestic league (MLS) has improved for sure but again this doesn't necessarily translate into more/better US players. The US is merely suffering in the same way Australia is: more infrastructure and resources but less special players. Let the top players play in the best facilities and the younger players play in all type of surfaces. I played on the beach and concrete and dirt most of my youth career and playing on great surface would not have helped improve me as a player. So the answer is not to make more facilities or buy more equipment or have more video analysis and tracking devices or multiple tournaments and league standings. History has shown and proven that the top players in the world didn't have any of this. As a consumer product thats different. Making the game more attractive and appealing from a commercial point of view is all very well, but players aren't made this way. I once heard a TV commentator compare the GNP of Ghana to the USA in the 2010 World Cup. This was very revealing. If rich countries who put massive amounts of money were the ones developing players then you would see England national team benefitting from the Premier League. Where are the top players? You have to be able to see past the cosmetic. Most English clubs aren't owned by English people and the league they play in is a separate business to the English Football Association and has nothing to do with grassroots football and owes nothing to it. So you have to think about where the top players are coming from who play in those leagues....Senegal, Egypt, South Korea, Belgium, Norway etc. They can still come from the US but it's not going to be the federation or a college or a league or fancy stadium or training facility or coaching licenses or curriculums that will help you find the next top player. Why dont you ask Donovan, Dempsey, Sullivan or Pulisic?
Q: Can the US Soccer Federation impose a style of play on the youth game? Or does college dictate the style of play in the US?
A: The US is way too big be to be centrally administered and managed. I think they need to leave the 'style' of play out of the conversation and tell clubs, coaches, players and parents to go and learn how to play the game. Prove you have earned the right to be identified as a special talent and earn the right to be called 'Elite'. Make yourself so good that you can not be ignored. College is college. The entire US youth system is geared to college, and that is a problem if that is the end game for players. Colleges should serve as a springboard for aspiring future professionals. When everyone is aspiring to play such mediocre football, you have just set a benchmark that is way too low to be taken seriously or can compete by the rest of the world standards. There are some great college coaches and some are capable of developing players by the NCAA rules and limited season and focus on academics over sports as well as the fact that coaches need to depend on college players wanting and needing to improve and hope they have a desire to play beyond college but that number is tiny. So what can they do? The youth game doesn't do a good job of supporting the college game in terms of development. So many players still cannot strike, receive, guide and master the ball when they get to college. And the youth game blames colleges for picking less technical and more physical players. There is an impasse.
Q: People have expected US women to win and just keeping winning, as if we have some kind of given right to do so and assume somehow that other nations dont have the athletic talent pool, work rate and fighting spirit that we have. Carli Lloyd said that they may not have won in an attractive way but they ‘got it done’ but now things get even harder as other nations can physically compete. How do you re-set expectations of fans, media, sponsors and the federation?
A: In men’s sports, England invented cricket, but now you have 10 countries that can beat them. In Rugby the All Blacks recently lost to Argentina and Ireland at home due to their improved fitness and now Japan and Kenya are on the map. In football the same thing happened many years ago. England have never gotten over losing to Hungary when Hungary not only equalled Englands physicality but were technically better. England ‘invented’ pro. football but an Englishman was responsible for developing Hungarian football in the same way they developed South American football in Chile, Uruguay, Peru and Argentina…it was Welsh miners…Englands mens team doesnt own the mens game now. Hungary beat them twice recently. We have to stop looking at population size GNP and GDP as measurements of potential success. Some of the smallest countries in the world have had major success with their national teams and with players development. took last Croatia, Uruguay, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland. Holland, Czech, Hungary, Denmark. Norway have 2 million fewer people than the SF Bay Area and Australia and Iceland are the most sparsely populated countries in the world. Its a 'game of inches' now as opposed to a game of yards but the difference is only 1/8 of an inch- 1/16 of an inch: Heres an example: The American Edward Deming was a major reason for Japans post war development. Many in Japan credit Deming as one of the inspirations for what has become known as the Japanese post war economic miracle of 1950 to 1960 which started Japans journey to becoming the second largest economy in the world through processes partially influenced by the ideas Deming taught.
“Deming's teachings and philosophy are clearly illustrated by examining the results they produced after they were adopted by Japanese industry, as the following example shows. Ford was simultaneously manufacturing a car model with transmissions made in Japan and the United States. Soon after the car model was on the market.. Ford customers were requesting the model with Japanese transmission over the US-made transmission, and they were willing to wait for the Japanese model. As both transmissions were made to the same specifications, Ford engineers could not understand the customer preference for the model with Japanese transmission. Finally, Ford engineers decided to take apart the two different transmissions. The American-made car parts were all within specified tolerance levels. On the other hand, the Japanese car parts were virtually identical to each other, and much closer to the nominal values for the parts-e.g., if a part was supposed to be one foot long, plus or minus 1/8 of an inch—then the Japanese parts were all within 1/16 of an inch, less variation. This made the Japanese cars run more smoothly and customers experienced fewer problems”.
Its the same situation in entertainment and technology Hollywood and Silicon Valley may have invested or created their industries but they aren't feeding the brains behind them and now you don't have to be in Silicon Valley or Hollywood - there are lots of Silicon Valleys and Hollywoods around the world. Every team and organization has its time. Things evolve. It’s called competition. In fact, we have a danger of slipping further behind because Americas are obsessed with match results and recruiting. Thats nothing to do with development. The Premier League isn't British or English. It's an international league. It has nothing to do with the English Football Association….Its a global product with a global audience and its allegiance is to a global audience, not youth grassroots football in the UK. Its not there to serve English players…The US womens have to realize that they have a league thats ranked 5-6 in level and quality and pays less than other countries and is a shorter length than European leagues. Living and playing in the US isn't as appealing as it once was when you had LA Sol playing in the WUSA. The Sol coach Abner Rogers would be a good person to ask about that. Players now want to stay and go to Europe to play and live. Money and lifestyle and recognition is what attracted players to the USA in the first place. but nowadays players can be on TV and internet and train and play at nice facilities and get well paid anywhere in the world and if you're living in Europe you can be watching a mens pro game within an hour flight or few hours drive or playing for an iconic name like Spurs or Arsenal or Liverpool. In addition, you may have seen most international friendlies are being played in Europe so it makes sense to be based there. I think you will see some South and Central American womens events being played in the USA but if players are based in Europe you will see even more national teams playing one another there. English and Spanish players are trying to make pro. club teams, not college, and from there they are trying to rep. their country. I dont think it’s the same here.
Q: Advice for players wanting to play at the highest level in the US?
A: Play up one, two or three years if you can. Teams do not get recruited, players do. As I said earlier, make yourself so good you cannot be ignored. Don’t fall into a system and get a fixed position. Learn everything about the ball. Become a technician- a great dribbler and good passer of the ball. Have a fascination for it and for movement. Enjoy connecting with other great technicians: a nice give and go or making a creative run for your teammates to craft a pass to you. Enjoy the satisfaction of truly making a great half volley first touch on the run. Spend countless hours agains a wall. Train alone- don't wait for team practice! Enjoy becoming fitter but don't let your physicality be your differentiating quality. It's not enough. As a player all you need is a small amount of space and a ball. You don't get better with the ball by not using it. It's not a mystery.
Q: It's strange that players play age pure but when they get to high school, freshmen play with seniors and the same happens in college. Incoming freshmen want to play so effectively, they are playing against players 1-3 years older, correct? So should the top players be playing up locally rather than playing meaningless age pure travel for a revenue generating event?
A: Yes, and anyone who thinks they are good has to ask themselves, 'am I that good I can dominate in older teams?'. Because if you are not dominating in your own age group, or at least competing the one immediately above you, you are simply not special. If you can, you should be playing up a year or two locally. Save your money and your time on travel, spend more time with friend or family or doing homework and practicing. Save their parents some time too! I really feel for parents who are getting dragged around the state and country with the hope of being scouted and recruited and their own clubs can tell you by age 12 what your future holds and what path a player is on. Some use that as a ‘fear of missing out’ anxiety to perpetuate costly participation in youth careers when in reality the players trajectory is pretty much established when you start kicking a ball and mostly defined by age 12 prior to travel/comp. A large majority of travel in youth soccer for scouting and identification is needless. You can get competition and training locally.
Q: What about the social aspect of players playing with their peers and not wanting to play up?
A: Yes, that’s all fine and good but you can’t have it both ways. Players who play up will be scouted and excel more rapidly. The game is quicker, your touch needs to be better and you need to think quicker. I've seen many players take the social route through their formative years and then at age 13-14 they want to develop technically. It's too late if you want to become truly great but you can always improve- just not at the rate you would hope for than if you were younger.
Q: In the US, the competitive travel leagues starts at age 13 and pre-comp even sooner. If players are getting picked for physical attributes at 13 and simply outrunning their opponents and you say that college recruiting pretty much ends at 15, how does a 13-15 year old improve at a rate fast enough to catch the athletes if the top spots have already been accounted for?
A: They cant really unless they dedicate themselves 2/47 and are getting tremendous training and guidance. In any case, a players participation in college depends on academic and socio economic as much as athletic. Ivy’s and Nescac’s need high academic proficiently to play at. The often don't complete their recruiting until very late but scouting takes place years before. Those programs keep tabs on players and in some cases they may be able to tag an application which helps a player qualify academically but there are rare and there aren't many of these spots available.
Q: What chance does a youth team player, for example on an elite level 2nd team have to make the first team?
A: Hardly any. It's not different to any other league or club. Once a player has been assigned to a second team in any club or a third team then they are pretty much considered revenue players. Thats all fine if the club is local and they are providing for players, but to travel long distances to be on a 2nd team with the false hope of being developed and brought up to the first team is not realistic. It’s extremely rare for a 2nd team player to make a first team once they enter that level of play because the gap gets bigger every year (commitment, coaching, demands, ability etc) and elite clubs start to recruit from a smaller player pool and often recruit off one another. There aren't many top players not playing in the top leagues or first team of their club by age 15-16 so what you tend to see are players jumping to other clubs to get more status only to find they were probably better off where there were. There are some late developers who can surprise but these are few and far between. But, unscrupulous clubs and coaches will tell you that you have a 'pathway' to greater things if you stay on a 2nd team and work hard. That is just a flat out exaggeration.
Q: It’s apparent to anyone watching college soccer that college coaches can’t afford to ignore athletic players and they cant be blamed for selecting players who can cover ground. College coaches aren't hired by their schools to produce players to the USA national team. They are hired to compete and provide a supportive environment for their players during their 4 year academic careers. ‘Can they cover ground’ and 'they have to be able to run!' are comments frequently heard from college coaches when recruiting players. Is the college system geared to allow college coaches to develop players?
A: First of all, there is nothing wrong with covering ground. I used to go for a 5 mile run in the hills to cool down after games or to burn excess fuel from games. Jerry Rice used to run hills and some of the best players in history were the fittest. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the game. To be great technician you have to be fitter than anyone else because running with the ball is the most physically demanding of all. So, let's not have anyone jump all over my comments thinking that you can solve everything with the ball and that there isn't a massive physical demand in football. Most top players cover 9-13 km a game with much of it walking, jogging (mostly backwards, sideways and skipping etc) and a little sprinting. But let's park that conversation for another time. There are only a few college players driven or knowledgeable enough or have the self discipline to practice alone or in groups in the off season (NCAA rules limit coaching coaching time with players) and to continue to improve their personal game while they are in college. It’s a very low number who are motivated to improve technically and an even lower number of players who know how to self train, so that number goes down to an extremely small percentage. So in fact the actual elite player pool is super small because at age 22 you are still an unfinished product technically and tactically and you have at least 10 years of good physical output beyond college graduation. Seniors are already getting into the workplace while JR's and Sophomores are looking for an internship as they realize they are probably not going to play professionally. This actually tells you a lot about youth soccer and how we prepare players for their post youth soccer careers. In other words, if you can’t self train and always waiting for the college coach to improve you in college, then your development is over by age 19 because the year-round playing and training schedule is gone. College pre season is late July/early August and games go through mid November or end of November if you make it to the Final Four. I would be seeking development in college and attend a program which offered me options of continuous development and the opportunity to spend a semester or year abroad. If a college program had a technical components in the off-season where I could advance my personal technical development I would look for that. Colleges like North Carolina coached by Anson Dorrance have several players who played/trained in Italy last year I believe. If I was an aspiring player I would certainly want to look for that type of link to Europe or South America if I was playing for 4 years in college.
Q: England didn't all of a sudden discover football. Any surprises on their recent 2:1 win vs USA?
A: England have always had good players but US players are physically active from a young age and soccer has been socially acceptable and encouraged for many years, esp. after Title 9 was introduced. The world has changed now. Womens football is a global game. Expect it to be even more competitive as the game grows exponentially. To reengineer a whole country development scheme like the USA takes a generation provided everyone is on board and wants the same thing but because the federation is toothless and has no influence on mandating playing styles, coaching philosophy, the free market will point to the key motivator in player development and recruiting which is college, not national team. College Athletic departments governed by NCAA rules generally wont and don't care about FIFA or US Soccer or the US making the World Cup and unless college soccer changes its style, approach and philosophy, then the status quo remains and other countries will continue to progress even more and they gap will get even bigger. And, to continue player development in college, the US college system would have to extend their seasons twofold (for example, 8 years instead of 4 years; players are just beginning to develop at age 21-22), to be a positively impactful development. Even if they have the knowledge and desire to improve their players. college coaches have their hands tied when it comes to developing players in their programs and players themselves just dont have enough time to develop for the short time they are there.
Q: Does this mean that other countries will never be caught if they get ahead of the US?
A: It will be very hard to recover this lost ground because of the increasing momentum and improvement of teams globally. However other countries have issues too. They aren't perfect and need work in many areas. The womens game still has far to go which is exciting because these are the early years. Whats worrying for the USA is that the game isn't improving here. One cant not imagine there aren't great athletes all over the world who can play football and have a passion for the game. USA don't own the player talent pool. Nowadays England can simply run for 90 mins with USA (they still aren't fit yet) and can string a few passes together but in terms of their mobility and touch and technical ability there is room for a lot of improvement. Other countries improved fitness has allowed them to play on even playing field with USA and when you put motivated hungry ‘silver medal’ players with a home crowd and something to prove as we saw with England and Spain recently, gives them the edge but it doesn't mean they have arrived at the pinnacle of the game. England needs to improve and can always get better tactically and need to look at themselves because other countries are arriving on the scene and improving quickly.
Q: But if England are going to improve physically and technically how does the US find a competitive differentiating quality?
A: Unless youth soccer clubs and leagues re-engineer themselves and focus on long term development and colleges raise their offering to become incubators for aspiring professional players, well Im afraid they don't and they cant. The differences between countries are minimal now. It’s like a sprint. There are so many runners with similar times that it becomes a game of inches and not yards. The same evolution of parity happened in mens football. Look at the results in the 70s or 80s; huge massive scorelines in the early days and now the big countries have to be on their game to ensure even a modest result. Even at the top of the Premier League we are seeing only very fine margins between the top teams and bottom teams.
‘The technical advantage that the USA used to enjoy in the early days of women’s international football due to the grassroots infrastructure is no longer so pronounced and the women appear to be relying more and more on an athletic advantage that is minimized with the playing styles of the aforementioned European teams. ‘they’d be well served to acknowledge the narrowing gap between themselves and other major footballing nations and the need for continuous improvement and reinvention to stay on top’ (FIRST TOUCH ONLINE)
Q: You were a critic of the US Soccer DA League governed by US soccer. Why didn’t it work?
A: The intentions were good but a number of things. eg. Limited substitutions; It was billed as a development league but they wanted results and to compete with not federation governed leagues which are governed/owned'/managed by private organizations; US soccer decided on 5 age groups instead of the 3 age groups that were originally proposed; too much travel- time and cost prohibitive’ ; players couldn’t play in 2 fixtures the same weekend and vs same opponent; no HS soccer was allowed; the first 2 DA age groups were scouted by national team scouts but rarely would watch the older groups as the selection process at the ‘market training centers’ effectively stopped at age 15; he DA was created to feed national team players at the clubs expense and probably didn't understand or chose to ignore the youth market and the business of youth soccer; they weren't wrong in trying to implement some of the changes but they should have funded it themselves but the size of the country and cost to scale the platform prevents them from doing that and the US soccer federation didn’t have the funding for it; their technical advisors weren't always better or more knowledgeable than the club coaches. It was very hard for clubs to recruit and retain players as a result of all of the above.
Q: How can a coach or training develop a player in 2-3 years if you are saying that most of the players development takes place before age 12 and college recurring effectively ends at 15 and players don't improve too much beyond that age.
A: They cant because they either aren't able to and because their schedules dense allow for it so players look outside their own club environment to get private training. clubs adding 2 hours a week for technical training at age 13-15 wont make too much of a difference unless the players are being trained to self train/practice. There are very few coaches in this country who can make transformational changes of highly self motivated players. It's extremely rare to find them. So the development needs to take place ages 3-9. ages 9-13 is different many coaches aren't hired to technically train players, they are hired to recruit and retain players.
Q: So what is the solution for the US going forward?
A: Stop trying to be like Europe or South America and start being themselves and basing themselves like Australia, for example. Australia recognizes that soccer isn't its preferred sport and it has a similar size landmass and concentration of highly urban/suburban populations. They have had some fantastic players come out of the country in both mens and womens soccer. Craig Johnston (Liverpool), Tim Cahill (Everton), Bret Emerton (Feyenoord/Blackburn), Mark Viduka (Leeds), Harry Kewell (Leeds/Liverpool), Šimunić (captain of Croatia). Christian Vieri (Juventus/Inter/Italy), De Vanna (Womens team), Sam Kerr (Chelsea).
In the same way Australia is fighting Aussie Rules, Rugby Union, Rugby League and Cricket for attention, the US has a multitude of sporting options that fight soccer/football for athletes, spectators and consumers attention. The US has plenty of knowledgeable and passionate fans but the game still isnt mainstream. For example, local club San Jose Earthquakes finished bottom of the MLS table recently. Noone has mentioned them and i dont know of anyone who watches them. In the Bay Area you have Golden State Warriors, A's, SF Giants, SF 49ers not to mention the colleges that offer a multitude of decent level sports events. So the spectator 'drag' is a big challenge.
My advice for developing young players is for US Soccer to focus on USA-West & USA-East, North, South, Southeast, Southwest, Mountain, etc..... create a top tier League that provides a suitable competitive platform which is also fluid in its rosters and is NOT focussed on the result of a game, but on the result of its graduating players. From there pick regional teams and train them regularly and keep inviting players into the pools. Just let each region focus on their own region. California is even too big for one region- for example the SF Bay Area I think it had the bigger landmass and population than 8 countries at the last World Cup. Other counties have the advantage of being able to access and track their talent pool more frequently and efficiently. China, Russ ia and USA have the same problems. Interestingly Brazil and Australia are similar in size but most of the population is regionalized and in urban areas. The USA has a bigger challenge than most other countries.
