What is wrong with the US Men's Soccer Team?

Actually- how do we know that the U.S. doesn't suck at basketball, baseball, and football also.

I know these professional sports have huge advertising budgets but really.....

no-one outside the US really cares about these sports.

Could be that we would loose to Guatemala in football, basketball, and baseball- if the Guatemalans chose to pursue such idiotic sports.

So what you're saying defies all we know about physiology. You cannot train the kind of endurance needed to play top level soccer by converting a sprinter into a distance runner.Yes you could throw some of the names you mentioned out there and they would play great for a half hour (even if they started playing at age 3). The problem is that you can't sub them out and the game is an hour and a half. So you give up speed for endurance to ensure you can press late in the game.As I mentioned before, we should not be looking at the great athletes of today's pro leagues as examples of opportunities lost for the USMNT, we should be look at:

Jefe in the CO wrote:

With that said, I believe that there are a lot of throw away athletes from the big 3 sports in America walking the halls that could become great soccer players or middle to long distance runners for that matter. They just had too many slow twitch muscle fibers to make the cut in non-endurance based sports.

shut up hipster trash

Honestly the Americans are about where they should in soccer given it's second rate status among the general populous.

Physiology knowledge?

Wes welker and darelle Revis could not play soccer ? Desean Jackson ? Good thing they had other sports to fall back on

pulisic played tonite. Notable as now cap tied.

You understand the difference between 25 yard sprints and pauses in soccer? Endurance can be developed speed not as much. Your posts are full of mischief.

If you can teach endurance so well why not have Welker, Revis, Jackson, et al play both ways?

I would surmise that Welker, Revis, Jackson and whomever else from the NFL you'd like to use, if trained from birth, would be fine in the MLS. I don't believe that they could do squat at the WC/Champions league level for 90 minutes.

You can sub one, maybe two of them, but for them to be as good as they are at the NFL level, it probably means that they don't have the wherewithal to sustain their speed over a 90 minute game.

The basic assumption here, using track as an analogy, is that an open 53 second 400m is slow as dirt but it is world class at the end of a 5k/10k. If 53 seconds is so slow why don't the sprinters just move up to the 5k and clean house? They have the "hard to train" speed, just add the easy to train endurance to the mix and Mo is toast.

How bad do you think the athletes are at the WC/Champions league level? This isn't mischief, it's fairly simple math.

Been said a lot I'm sure...

Do you think Italians sit around and ponder why we kick their butts at quite literally everything besides soccer?...well, maybe not motocross... But you see my point.

Soccer is not our culture. I'm OK with.

So Marvell Wynne could not run 10.89 and sustain your "speed endurance" to play soccer for 90 minutes? Physiologically mathematically impossible?

Aldo Donelli could not play in the NFL successfully and play international soccer ? Physiologically different qualities huh?

Jim Brown could not excel at track and field and football and then also sustain and apply his speed and athleticism to lacrosse? Physiologically just too different?

Kyle Rote excelled at track and the NFL but his son was just genetically different enough to be able to succeed at soccer ?

There is speed on the ball and speed without and technical ability matters: Pele was actually faster over 50 yards with the ball than without it. Imagine that. We can't just assume Devin Hester or Desean Jackson would develop technical skill or to what level. But to rule them out as you do based on hour physiological math ? We'll that kinda math went out the window in the 1936 Olympics. Jesse Owens would have made a helluva soccer player and no sensible coach would deny it.

Only Cruyff and the total football system run by Ajax in the 70s fits your goal of endurance as a heavily weighted value. That system is no longer played and even so cruyff has burst.

You are just about mischief and creating a stir. You can stir the drink but that doesn't change it. It is a shame the US elite athletes are not in the world sport as it would add to the beautiful game.

Michael Owen 10.8

Theo Walcott 10.6

Imagine how good they could of been in the premier league if not for their physiological impairment that limited their "speed endurance".

Only skimmed through the thread, but there's a lot of conventional wisdom being spewed that is just wrong.

I'll respond to the myths:

1. Myth 1 : US kids don't play soccer. Wrong. US has massive numbers of youth players, possibly more than any country in the world.

2. Myth 2 : Our best athletes don't play soccer. Unproven and irrelevant. Unproven because, as has been pointed out, most football and basketball players are too big and slow (relative to a Messi or Ronaldo) to even be imagined playing elite soccer. When Landon Donovan played for Everton on loan those two partial-seasons, the EPL was all agog at his speed ("pace"). He played a lot on the wing and torched Ashley Cole (considered to be among the best left backs in the world at the time)...and then Cole broke his leg on a challenge but that's another matter. Irrelevant" because we still have massive numbers of great athletes playing soccer, and based on numbers alone it's a farce to say that we have too many athletes pulled away from soccer to compete against countries that have 5% (or less) of our population.

3. Myth 3 : USMNT is slow and not athletic (somebody posted this). Wrong. The one thing that the USMNT is ever really praised for is its athleticism. It's typically the more "athletic" (size, speed, etc) team on the field/pitch. Not skilled at all and poorly organized, sure, but not lacking in athleticism.

4. Myth 4 : US has never produced an international-quality field player. Silly. The US hasn't produced a global superstar by any stretch, but players like Donovan and Dempsey and Claudio Reyna and Brian McBride all played well in Europe. Goalkeepers we have in abundance too, though the idea that Tim Howard is now or ever was one of the world's top goalkeepers is laughable. Doesn't control the box and hangs onto the ball too long instead of distributing, but a great athlete in his time and good at reaction saves. In their respective primes, I rate both Kasey Keller and Brad Friedel ahead of Howard.

So what's wrong with US soccer? Bad coaching at the youth level mostly, which stunts the skill development of our players. To be clear, bad coaching is related to the cultural factors too. Too much (and very American) emphasis on playing games at young ages and trying to win them. No, I'm talking about every-kid-is-a-winner drivel, I'm saying that having talented 8-12 year olds playing in tournaments all the time stunts their development (in combo with bad coaching) because the strategy to win at that level isn't necessarily the same thing that leads to the development of the necessary skills and field vision to play at the highest levels. The kid who is talented at 11 and can score goals based on speed, sometimes size, aggressiveness and bit of skill relative to his peers doesn't end up developing further the things that will turn him into a great 18 year old player. This is obvious if you ever watch the NCAA soccer tournament...to say it's not like watching Barcelona in terms of ball control, vision and skill is an understatement. Yet these are 18-22 year olds who in theory should be the up-and-coming players on the USMNT. Sigh...

Agree. I posted somewhere in this thread that my kid has decided to not play soccer next season. This is mostly due to none of his friends playing soccer outside of practice. They all want to play football and basketball in their spare time.

But to add to your comment: While we have an excellent coach, he is pressured by the $$$$ parents to win. I think American youth soccer (and any sport for that matter) needs let parents know that it's about the process and learning, not necessarily the result. But the parents wont accept that. They want their kid to win, they want to snap 553 photos of their kid with their shiny medal for winning, they want to talk about how their kid is on the "best" team, going to play for the National Team one day after they replace Messi in Barcelona's starting line-up, etc.... I think it is worse in soccer than any other youth sport due to the money most soccer parents have. Maybe competitive baseball is as bad too. Either way, if we can change that culture (not likely) I think it would yield better results down the road.

Both of my kids play club soccer.

The oldest is small, slow and has a club-foot. Soccer has been a great participatory activity for him.

The youngest is bigger, faster and very competitive. Youth soccer was great. But as he has gotten older- his ambitions seem to be stiffled but the lack of opportunities for serious play.

He is on the only "state league" team in town. There are lots of tournaments. Lots of bragging and ass-kissing parents milling around. But very few disciplined practices. (Only three times a week).

No one seems to care.

Everyone is just hoping that their kid will just happen to be the 1 in a billion who is great without serious practice.

I guess this is how it is done with football and baseball.

But what about Tennis or swimming?

Those kids are practicing 25+ hours/week.

I tell you the approach for "serious youth soccer" should be like these sports.

The US is the best in football and baseball.

But that is because few other countries do these sports.

But the US is also good at swimming and tennis.

Our swimmers don't practice 4.5 hours/week "because that's what football players do."

Michael Phelps would be slower than a 12 year old girl if this were his approach.

I think you got #1 and #2 wrong. Yes, we have large participation numbers but we are a very large country. How many kids stay with soccer? How does that compare to football? At the college level each football team has close to 100 players. Probably 5x the level of soccer. Kids drop out of soccer before 6th grade.

And who are the kids participating in soccer? Look at the make up of the big professional and college sports in the US. Where do these guys come from? Do you see lots of any inner city urban youth playing soccer in the US? How about in rural areas? It's only suburban kids.

And the endurance issue other posters have brought up is laughable. Any sufficiently conditioned kid can jog /walk around a soccer field for a total of 4 miles over 90 minutes (with a break in the middle). That's walking speed.

Where in the world are you getting this "physiologically mathematically impossible" stuff from?

Of course they could play soccer for 90 minutes, and likely they would be darn good at it - I think I even gave them credit for potentially achieving MLS level play. The question is; would they have the physiological attributes to make it to the USMNT/WC/Champions League level? Also, are we, as a Nation, missing out on being great because all our soccer talent is sequestered away in the NBA, NFL?

My answer is; not likely on both counts. Those athletes that play speed centric sports at the highest level generally have lousy endurance. The game, when played at the highest level, usually doesn't start opening up until after the first hour - that is when fatigue starts setting in and the speedsters lose a step or two. Since you argue in black and white - Disclaimer: there may be special talent in the NBA/NFL that could make world class soccer players but that would likely be a very, special talent (Bolt like talent).

Not sure what a 10.8 100 meter time does for your cause. Those times indicate a throw away for Track & Field but maybe a good candidate for soccer. The same way a 4:05 miler might make a good candidate for soccer.

So I'll try again to see if you can absorb this concept; an NFL football player (that has the build to play soccer - if you're small you'd better be fast), too me, is equivalent to a world class sprinter; made up of great speed/lousy endurance. A good collegiate football player not fast enough for the NFL would be a great candidate to become a good soccer player; average speed/average endurance. That is the physiology that I'm talking about. I'm still at a loss why you think this is illogical.

BTW - you still didn't answer the question I posed to you about training endurance into sprinters so they could take on Mo over the 5k distance.

A Ham wrote:

All will (appear) to be right in US Soccer-land when they beat Guatemala 4-0 tonight.

Great prediction.

I'm not sure what the OP is talking about. "What is wrong with the US men's soccer team?" I don't get what the post was referencing.

I don't think there is much wrong with the team. We are what we've sort of always been the last 15-20 years, a pretty good team that if the ball goes our way can make an exciting run out of the group stage in the WC.

Was the loss to Guatemala bad? Yes, but tha'ts soccer. They don't mark a guy on a header and then give up a ridiculous 2nd goal. You get down 2 to zero on the road and it's hard to come back from.

It amazes me that soccer fans don't realize how much luck is involved in the game. You lose one game and people freak. You get lucky at the World Cup, get out of the group stage and make the quarters and the coach is a God.

For the most part, it like all sports is about players. If we had a team full of the best players, we'd be one of the best teams. We have athletic players that can run. It gives us a chance.

Rojo, I am the OP.

The post was referencing the recent bad form of the US. Dating back to last year, we've seen some horrendous play from the USA. It started with the CONCACAF Gold Cup and losing to Panama and Jamaica (at home). It continued with the loss in the Confederations Cup playoff game to Mexico, where the US was vastly outplayed by Mexico in the loss. It continued Friday night with a listless 2-0 loss where the tactics were bad, the lineup choices were puzzling and the team just looked out of sorts (granted, injuries to your backline will do this to you).

I wasn't trying to say that the US is the best team in the world or even should be. You said it yourself..the US is what they have been for the last 15-20 years. ..in other words we have not made progress. That's a problem. Look at last night. The senior men's team wins 4-0. The U-23s lose to Colombia, at home. Heck, I was surprised the tied Colombia on the road. This knocks them out of the Olympics...for the second straight Olympics. Again, progress stalled at the younger level..

I asked 6 questions in my original post. Answers were given. Solutions were brought up (and shot down on occasion). We had a good, healthy discussion. I'm a fan. I played the game, I coached the game (high school) and have known people who represented Team USA at various levels. I'd love for them to better than they are.

you seem to be arguing that people are born as sprinters or distance runners and you cannot train one to succeed at the other, therefore you cannot take great athletes from America's primary sports and wish that their innate abilities had been developed for soccer instead of their current sport.

I think you oversimplify, a more comprehensive view is:

1. there are athletes that possess various combinations of fast-twitch and slow-twitch, that alone is not determinate of whether they will succeed at any specific sport

2. physiology tells us that training exclusively slow twitch or fast twitch has a significant effect and can cannibalize muscle ability, there needs to be a balance

3. soccer is not a 90 minute distance run, where the winner is awarded a prize based on distance travelled, I do not agree that most games are decided late in the game when players are tired, Premier league players top out at about 12km run per 90 minute game. Not exactly a blistering distance to cover in 90 minutes. The distances come at a walk, a jog, and at certain positions 50-70 sprints of varying distance. It can get brutal when they play 3 games in 6 days, but they do call up reserves etc. There is a halftime and other stoppages in play.

4. the ability to change direction at speed, to accelerate, and to decelerate are a prerequisite to the value of any endurance in soccer

5. technical ability is also a prerequisite, I agree there is no way to tell whether a Wes Welker who at 5'8" with cutting speed and good hands would ever have developed a touch with good feet. (Pace by the way is not the same as speed in soccer, it refers to different speeds of the player with the ball and without, it is the ability to change pace that is referred to)

6. for the last ten years of his career, (and maybe the first) Maradona could not run 3 miles straight if you put a gun to his head, but he was still great

there are different athletic types playing successfully in Premier League

Sorry if this comes across as a lecture, not meant to be. Everyone can see things differently, I am just trying to clarify why I am saying there are great athletes in the US that it would be intriguing to see train, develop, and perform exclusively in soccer instead of the US $ sports.

One other thing that has been detrimental to US athlete development is that there is a tremendous bias against US athletes going overseas, they typically disappoint at the next level, get less time to train though it, and sent home then not resigned. Worse they get welcomed into the endearing arms of MLS where the comfort zone is good and they can be a success in a small pond.

There is no strategy or reliance on games being decided by late game endurance and mistakes, actual gameplay bears this out:

take the 14' WC round of quarterfinals when teams presumably are better matched and in elimination games:

France Germany Germany scores at 13' game over

Brazil Columbia - Brazil scores 7' in game over

Argentina v. Belgium - Argentina scores 8' in game over

Netherlands v. Costa Rica - scoreless goes to PKs

In the Semis:

Germany 7- brazil 1

Netherlands Argentina scoreless goes to PKs

Final:

scoreless until Germany scores in 118' on a seven player possession combination

And Rojo if it is all about luck, the US is due some

I am going on too much. To each his own. I think we all agree there is room for improvement in US soccer and hope for it. Pulisic will be interesting to watch.

If you are going to blame Klinsman, then you need to credit him for Christian Pulisic. I think the discussion was good and healthy and interesting. Thanks for bringing it all up.