100% agree with this. Just b/c Iniesta wouldn't be a world class 400m runner doesn't mean he wasn't born with ridiculous athletic talents

KB4Z and Sethy,

lol you guys, ****ing christ. do you not see (right there!) where you immediately conflate explosiveness and athleticism, sethy? and then KBZ chimes in to +1 the post while fully transitioning to "athleticism". then ofc RAIDS gonna RAIDS.

thanks, though, for clearing up my misconception that Iniesta was a mediocre athlete due to his 400m time.

Pure aids discussion, although I'm fairly certain sethy is trolling the **** out of us.

This just isn't the situation. If you think the substantive, decisive factor on what countries are producing this technical talent is "population", you're simply objectively incorrect. No serious observer of soccer would agree with you. Look at Bjorn's AMF/Winger ranking yourself if you want.

Germany invested a ton in youth development and has a ton of highly certified coaches. Spain has the culture of highly technical, fluid players built through culturally relevant academy systems (Barca the leader.) England has fewer certified coaches, greater restrictions on hours spent training, a generally reactionary national team, and a culture of kick-and-run soccer.

But it could just be population and variance. Germany (pop: 81m) has 5 players in the top 20 and 9 in the top 100. Spain (pop: 47m) has 5 in the top 20 (including 1, 2, and 3) and 16 in the top 100. England (pop 53m) has three representatives in the top 100 -- at 55, 91, and 97 -- all of whom are technically limited speedsters. Draw your own conclusions.

This is my last post on the matter, pretty sure I've addressed all substantive points across posts if you care. "Population" is a huge factor in world soccer, absolutely no doubt. But if you think the reason England's not developing Santi Cazorlas is lack of population, you're wrong. No two ways about it. The corollary to the US is obvious, apply it if you want to.

Dude, your responding to me like I think that having an actual functional YDS wouldn't reap HUGE benefits for the USMNT. It, (much like yes getting a bigger share of the best athletes) is to my mind a necessary but not sufficient condition for us being a world power. It's also the factor USSF has the most control over, so yes do it yesterday.

Re: England, I think I implicitly addressed the Spain comparison. Name a sport that isn't an aristocratic sport like golf, cricket or rugby in which England has produced more than a handful of world class performers - I don't think it's just the FA ****ing up their YDS (nutrition maybe?).

I should add as a final thought that the two are certainly related in that a more professional youth coaching set up would do a better job of identifying and nurturing those kids whose athletic talents are conducive to footballing. That said if my memory serves, Ikes has been hostile to the idea that if the coaching system did a better job of including (broadly speaking if course) non-suburban upper middle class kids.

So I guess it's quite possible that the "athletes" we're talking about are playing soccer, but they never get beyond some dusty field in Chula Vista.

Lots of Lols itt

Lol cruizn.

Seriously though, what am I missing? If we're just arguing the definition of terms what do you think you mean when you say "athleticism" or "explosiveness?" Lets make sure we're talking about the same things.

Man I wonder how many times this conversation has been rehashed on these boards.

Not to discount anyone's opinions, but anyone who has played a significant amount of their life is going to have a hard time relating to anyone who hasn't.

Someone made a comment and compared Miguel Cabrara to Brad which made me laugh, because they obviously have two different skillsets. I guess its funny to think of Brad as a "World Class athlete" (which he is), because growing up he was never at any point the strongest or the fastest. He was fast, but what set him apart was his ridiculous motor. He could sprint forever.I believe that is something you were born with. But his game never really took off until he was surrounded by better players. None of this is all that surprising, but as someone who watched his career progress and saw and played against a lot of people who made various levels, what sets professional players apart is their soccer mind.

No one thinks that a xavi or inesta aren't extremely athletic.

However, what do you think sets a xavi or iniesta apart from other top tier footballers? Because it certainly isn't their physical measurables. It's far more ineffable, but it has to do with their ability to control a ball and see the pitch in ways normal people don't. It's not their 5 yard burst.

the "athleticism" vs "skill" vs whatever else you want to define it becomes a lot less contentious if we all agree to that some people are born with some amazing genetic edges vs the average Joe.

with no amount of Barca academy training would I have been able to turn into Xavi, and Xavi born in Mongolia wouldn't be 10% of the player he is now.

if you could produce Xavi's just via a training academy...there would be more of them.

there shouldn't be this much disagreement over this stuff

Those are the product of both innate coordination and skill development.

Thanks ray!

Agree with coordination being a genetic edge but skill development?

Edit nm I see what you are saying.

Also, I completely 100% buy the idea that certain people have a innate ability to see a soccer field in a way that I can't. What I 100% don't buy is that large numbers of these people end up playing football or baseball or basketball because this innate ability to see the pitch well just happens to be same gene that allows someone to play football.

Sorry, that's bull****.

Sure it does. There are countless examples of point guards who also play quarterback at the hs level. These athletes' innate ability to see angles that 95% of physically gifted kids their age can't see could easily translate to the pitch.

Vision, seeing the game, intelligence, creativity. When Xavi or Iniesta see an angle it's not a far cry from Peyton or James seeing a window in their respective sports.

I always think it's always hilarious how college soccer gets vilified in these discussions.

College soccer isn't the problem. The kids are 18 when they get there. Is College Soccer a good place to breed USMNT players? Of course not. But by the time they're 18, a lot of the opportunity to develop has been missed already.

Don't get me wrong, development can happen after the age of 18, and if we had the world's best 18-and-up development system it would help a little, but we still wouldn't be churning out Xavis and Iniestas. The development has to start MUCH MUCH younger.

The academy system, that is still fairly young, is a big step in the right direction. It really needs to continue at least all the way down until there are U10 academy systems (for those that are unaware, sanctioned academies currently field two teams, a U18 group and a U16 group.)

It's already starting to happen, but the ultimate role of college soccer in development of USMNT players should be that it shouldn't have a role. The really elite players, legit national team candidates, should be bypassing the college system and going directly to the pros.... like Agudelo, to name one.

There are hundreds of college soccer teams, and tens of thousands of players, and the college system is great for 99.9% of them. Instead of revamping that system, we need to just funnel the .1% into more suitable situations.

Wanting to change the college system because it's not good for the development of national pool players is like campaigning to change high school drama departments because they aren't efficiently creating/ preparing Broadway stars.

But, but, but, we have this...

http://www.usyouthsoccer.org/program...opmentProgram/

The college system doesnt need to be completely revamped. It needs literally one rule change.

Yeah, that's been the case for baseball to a large extent. The elite guys go from traveling teams as young as 10 (prob younger)--> HS-> minor leagues->pros. College is generally for guys not good enough to get drafted out of HS.

I'm not intimately familiar with ODP anymore, but in my day there were about 4 days of state tryouts. A few training sessions with the state team then there is a week long regional competition. Kids who impress there stayed another week to train in regional pool, who where then whittled down to a regional team. Team was whittled down to national pool, and only the national pool kids were invited to train in Bradenton FL at the IMG academy.

So yeah, 4 weeks of training for all but the top 30 or so players in the nation. That's not very good.

The new academy system is much better.

http://www.ussoccer.com/Teams/Develo...y/Academy.aspx

I'm assuming you're referring to FIFA style substitution rules with no reentry and 3 subs max?

If so, I agree that would be much better from a development standpoint. (for those that don't know, the current rules allow no re entry in the first half and one in the second...so a striker can play from 0-33rd min, 45-62, and 74-90th in a typical match. In fact, that would probably look like a typical substitution pattern for a striker on a lot of teams).

I don't think that's the biggest problem though developmentally, the bigger problem is the limits on coaching/off season contact. There are strict rules on when a coach can train his players in the off season (and the season only lasts 4 months at the absolute maximum), so more than half the year is spent without structure or coaching.

ODP is a complete joke now.

The Development Academies really are a step in the right direction, even if they are imperfect. With the growth of the MLS, hopefully it will be economically feasible for teams to be able to go even younger with their academies (and USSoccer will need to be accomodating of course).