|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jul 2, 2014 18:55:36 GMT -5
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Jul 2, 2014 19:11:06 GMT -5
can't really compare soccer in America to that of Volleyball.
|
|
|
|
Post by elevationvb on Jul 2, 2014 19:30:42 GMT -5
can't really compare soccer in America to that of Volleyball.
One of the big problems with club soccer here in the Austin area is that if you play for the top team in a major club, the club forbids the player from playing high school soccer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Jul 2, 2014 19:45:40 GMT -5
Actually, that is what the USA Soccer Academies are advocating.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Jul 2, 2014 19:57:19 GMT -5
can't really compare soccer in America to that of Volleyball.
One of the big problems with club soccer here in the Austin area is that if you play for the top team in a major club, the club forbids the player from playing high school soccer.
That's exactly my point. There is no where in the country that club volleyball is preventing players from playing high school. |
|
|
|
Post by elevationvb on Jul 2, 2014 20:07:43 GMT -5
In what way?
One of the big problems with club soccer here in the Austin area is that if you play for the top team in a major club, the club forbids the player from playing high school soccer.
That's exactly my point. There is no where in the country that club volleyball is preventing players from playing high school. |
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Jul 2, 2014 20:10:45 GMT -5
I think the hardest part about club volleyball is the fact that it is so expensive and cost prohibitive to many young players.
|
|
|
|
Post by elevationvb on Jul 2, 2014 20:21:36 GMT -5
I think the hardest part about club volleyball is the fact that it is so expensive and cost prohibitive to many young players.
I don't know enough about club soccer, but I'm guessing it's also expensive like volleyball? |
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Jul 2, 2014 20:39:41 GMT -5
The argument made by the writer is that the current soccer club system is holding the USA back from competing with world soccer powers - Brazil, Germany, Italy and so on. Which may be true, although I believe there's more to it than that. But looking at the world volleyball landscape, the USA is a world power. I don't pay much attention to club volleyball, but looking at the senior national team results over the past decade, the U.S. (men and women) have performed at a very high level. Accordingly, it would seem the club/NCAA system has been effective in producing a pipeline of skilled players for the national team programs. Setting aside the difficulty of completely overhauling the current club/college concept, is there really any need (other than some tweaks here and there) to do so?
|
|
|
|
Post by d3coach on Jul 2, 2014 21:06:46 GMT -5
I think the author's point is that we do it backwards. We breed entitled athletes by making them pay to play, and allowing everyone to essentially compete at whatever level they want. Instead he suggests building a landscape where club teams compete at different levels, and depending on their success they can move up or down. That financially it trickles down from the elite athletes, not up from the players' parents. Top level teams bring in money, and use it to fund lower level teams within the club, so that any young promising player can grow. Unlike as a general economic principle, in this way teams are incentivized to "trickle down" because that is where they develop their talent. This really only works if the top level teams are financially sustainable based on outside revenue, which in USA volleyball they aren't. I believe that this author is advocating what Europe does, and developing a tiered professional league where the professional teams are actually organizations that run teams for players of all ages.
Instead, we cultivate an atmosphere where parents pay club coaches to simply get their kid a roster spot on varsity, or a scholarship.
Use MLB has the closest structure we have. Except instead of simply having A -> AAA minor leagues, it would encompass little league baseball and AAU baseball (or whatever their organization is) in the same system. In terms of relegation, maybe half the teams would be MLB 2, and the top 3 teams at the end of the year would go to MLB 1, while the bottom 3 teams in MLB 1 would go to MLB 2.
|
|
rook
Sophomore
Posts: 180
|
Post by rook on Jul 2, 2014 22:09:52 GMT -5
In what way?
One of the big problems with club soccer here in the Austin area is that if you play for the top team in a major club, the club forbids the player from playing high school soccer.
That's exactly my point. There is no where in the country that club volleyball is preventing players from playing high school. Actually, we should try to prevent our kids from playing high school ball. Best players in the country are playing club for eight months....which is a hockey season. They then go straight to high school summer workouts, and into a high school season, often times with really bad coaching in the process. So their bodies never get a break, and they build bad habits...hmmm. If love it if my best kids didn't play high school ball! |
|
mrad
Sophomore
Posts: 208
|
Post by mrad on Jul 2, 2014 23:05:01 GMT -5
I find it so funny an English newspaper is telling us how to make changes while their country men could not get past the group stage. English soccer has been totally sucking for years . They have not been able to develop players. If Rooney is your best player, your team ain't going too far. The EPL is full of foreigners including the coaches. EPL looks like a refugee camp for the rich.
Anyway, in my humble opinion, the parents are the problems because they care too much about themselves and the kids. Win at all cost even in Jr High or lower levels. We do not have good coaching or maybe good coaches that care. It is all about winning in order to keep your jobs. Same with volleyball, btw. It is never about development.
|
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Jul 2, 2014 23:34:51 GMT -5
Honestly, his argument fails pretty quickly when you look at the USWNT, who uses a very similar model (minus the pro league) and yet is considered the premier team in the world.
If the criticism is directed towards MLS, then, again, it's an uniformed opinion. The MLS needs to be a working business and it can't operate the way it does in other countries because there isn't the casual support in the US that you have in other countries.
In other words, it sounds like people who don't understand the American sports landscape trying to impose incorrect assumptions.
The fact of the matter is that soccer does not attract the better male athletes because it is perceived by the general population as a secondary male sport. That has been gradually changing over the last 20-30 years and it is continuing to trend upward. There is no quick fix (that is, 5-10 years) to this and anyone proposing otherwise is ignorant.
Models from other countries won't apply because the US doesn't care about soccer as much as other countries do.
|
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 3, 2014 0:52:18 GMT -5
The article cited mentions the Belgians Overhauling their development system. The article ( heartoffutbol.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/belgiums-youth-development/ ) says that the Belgian FA and the 3 top clubs got together and decided on a national football phiolosphy, to teach and run a 4-3-3 on all of their teams at all levels. Further they start youth players at 5v5, to 8v8 before finally getting to 11v11 and use these steps to implement their 4-3-3 system. If I'm reading this right, that would be like USAV calling TAV, SPRI, A5 and T-Steet and deciding that all of their teams are going to run true-6-2 system, and that we would standardize 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 to develop the skills needed to fit into the 6-2. Here is another article about how other conutries have previously redeveloped their soccer development systems. footballspeak.com/post/2013/04/01/Englands-Spanish-and-German-Lessons.aspxThe highlights... -Netherlands makes a conscious effort to have the best players play each other under the watch of qualified coaches. If I'm reading this right, that means they wouldn't put D1 prospects with coaches who aren't going to challenge them because the primary goal is to keep them in the club until they are 18. - In France, whose results are beyond questioning, back in 1988 they built INF Clairfontaine, a school for soccer which developed players age 6 and up, and educated coaches to help fill out the system. According to wikipedia, Clairfontaine is now one of 12 such schools each with their own region. Players apply at age 12 to the school of their region, and in April each school has a 3 day tryout, from which they choose 22 players, each. 12 schools x 22 players is 264 players per year, nationwide. The FFF pays for the students to attend private school, they train 2 hours per day M-F and have weekends at home. Their soccer education includes sports psych, and football tactics. -In Spain they have 15,000 UEFA and Pro License coaches, 2x that of Germany, and far more than the 1010 in England. Spain also requires 750 hours of education to get the license, compared to the 245 in England. These license are a requirement for all soccer coaching positions in the club and even in the school systems. So if I'm reading that right, thats like if we required CAP 3 for every middle school, high school, club and college coach, and if CAP 3 were a few months long. -Like the other systems, all 15000 licensed coaches in Spain are supposed to be teaching the same "tiki-taka" style of play. With each country having a designated style of play that is trained for years I have 3 thoughts. A) this takes us back to Phaedrus' question from a month or so ago about what is our national style of volleyball? B) Russ Rose is only one of the coaches who has said it's the national teams job to get the players to play national team ball, and he's going to help them to be successful in college because thats his job. How does that work with a "national style" mentality that other countries apparently have. C) Kreklow and Reeves and some others in the national team gym started HP around 2003, right? So if we selected players using Toshi's specs, weeded them out according to Jenny's and then Hugh's, what they hell would we be left with? To do this right your style of play should be consistent and not whimsically easy to change. It better be the right system, and the FIVB better slow down the pace at which they change rules. |
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Jul 3, 2014 6:37:56 GMT -5
Our volleyball developmental system works very well in this country; really no reason to change anything. As far as soccer, we simply don't have our best athletes choosing to play the sport, if we did, we'd dominate soccer also. However, with the recent concussion and injury fallout in football and baseball fading in popularity, I could envision more and more elite young athletes choosing to play soccer (or lacrosse) in the future though.
|
|
