World Cup

kicker22 said:
Funny you said that. I've been to a number of conventions and conferences where well reputable higher ups in US soccer as well as reputable figures from around the globe have pointed out "street soccer" played in other countries as the single biggest factor in why we are behind the rest of the world and not yet a powerhouse.

Fact our style in the US is taught and learned on the fields. In other countries their style, toughness, and creativity comes from the streets and those conditions that they grow up in. Truth is we'll always be trying to catch up because our kids are learning the game by stepping on fields and they're already light years ahead of us when they finally get the chance to play on an actual field.
Click to expand...
Ukrainian kids just amaze me in soccer. One of my good friends houses refugees (they've had their own fair share of missile strikes one of which sent his wife running for his life) sends pictures of their children from Mariupol and Donbas areas playing at a field with gravel near his home. Street ball for sure. The US I think is moving away from trying to have perfect execution and tactics. Oh no, that sounds like....
 
HawkGold said:
Ukrainian kids just amaze me in soccer. One of my good friends houses refugees (they've had their own fair share of missile strikes one of which sent his wife running for his life) sends pictures of their children from Mariupol and Donbas areas playing at a field with gravel near his home. Street ball for sure. The US I think is moving away from trying to have perfect execution and tactics. Oh no, that sounds like....
Click to expand...
I think the US is getting to the point where we've got soccer players and can afford to moving away from the scripted style of play to that of the free flowing style we're beginning to see now. Unlike basketball and football the game can't be drawn up on a chalk board and cannot be dictated or drawn up ahead of times. There's a rhythm to it that we've never been able to find in the past which is IMO why we've always struggled to find success in the attacking 3rd, while generally being disciplined enough in the back to be competitive.

It's the constant chess match where your opponent presents a problem and your players are forced to find a solution on the fly. The intangibles of street soccer play into that model perfectly, as at an early age these foreign players are tasked with adapting to not traditional balls (patched balls, or in some cases makeshift balls), playing surfaces, lack of rules, or the fact they're just playing what we'd consider an unorganized playground game. Our kids don't learn from the streets and don't have the opportunity to figure things out on their own or teach themselves.
 
kicker22 said:
I think the US is getting to the point where we've got soccer players and can afford to moving away from the scripted style of play to that of the free flowing style we're beginning to see now. Unlike basketball and football the game can't be drawn up on a chalk board and cannot be dictated or drawn up ahead of times. There's a rhythm to it that we've never been able to find in the past which is IMO why we've always struggled to find success in the attacking 3rd, while generally being disciplined enough in the back to be competitive.

It's the constant chess match where your opponent presents a problem and your players are forced to find a solution on the fly. The intangibles of street soccer play into that model perfectly, as at an early age these foreign players are tasked with adapting to not traditional balls (patched balls, or in some cases makeshift balls), playing surfaces, lack of rules, or the fact they're just playing what we'd consider an unorganized playground game. Our kids don't learn from the streets and don't have the opportunity to figure things out on their own or teach themselves.
Click to expand...
Several of the US players were raised in England.
Yes, soccer coaching is like chess.
And yes to compete with lesser talent, build from the back. I use my backfield offensively though when they see things develop and the forward players cover. I like thinking players. We counter attack hard and overwhelm the opponent....with some risk.
 
HawkGold said:
Several of the US players were raised in England.
Yes, soccer coaching is like chess.
And yes to compete with lesser talent, build from the back. I use my backfield offensively though when they see things develop and the forward players cover. I like thinking players. We counter attack hard and overwhelm the opponent....with some risk.
Click to expand...
I don't mind where the US is and feel they're definitely progressing. Definitely think we're getting some weapons and getting to that point where it's not just about set pieces and counter attacking. Even in the Netherland loss we still had some great opportunities, but made some huge mistakes at pivotal moments that either cost us goals or allowed them to happen. The loss stings, but damn I'm already excited about 2026. Now we just need some strikers.
 
kicker22 said:
I don't mind where the US is and feel they're definitely progressing. Definitely think we're getting some weapons and getting to that point where it's not just about set pieces and counter attacking. Even in the Netherland loss we still had some great opportunities, but made some huge mistakes at pivotal moments that either cost us goals or allowed them to happen. The loss stings, but damn I'm already excited about 2026. Now we just need some strikers.
Click to expand...
Kind of nice to have the excitement back. I expected it but came away happy (starting to sound like a Hawk football fan). The next go around should be the year.

I miss my kids playing soccer. One of my sons got to go head-to-head for years against a Champaign team that had a player start for IU's 2012 national champs. Were some great matches.
 
HawkGold said:
Kind of nice to have the excitement back. I expected it but came away happy (starting to sound like a Hawk football fan). The next go around should be the year.

I miss my kids playing soccer. One of my sons got to go head-to-head for years against a Champaign team that had a player start for IU's 2012 national champs. Were some great matches.
Click to expand...
The excitement this team generated is a great thing, but created so much attention that it resulted in the bar being set way to high. The hype that this team had was rediculous. I understand supporting your county, but the majority of non-soccer fans that tuned in to support them bought into the the US media hype and most likely came away disappointed, but hopefully not to disappointed.

This years team was never a team that was going to contend for a championship or a long push in the knockout stage and I don't think the casual fans or those tuning in realized that. And that's unfortunate because I think it clouds the perception of how good this team could potentially be. This World Cup was never about winning it all, but rather getting to the knockout stage, getting the feet wet, and building the momentum and excitement for the 2026 group playing on home soil.
 
kicker22 said:
The excitement this team generated is a great thing, but created so much attention that it resulted in the bar being set way to high. The hype that this team had was rediculous. I understand supporting your county, but the majority of non-soccer fans that tuned in to support them bought into the the US media hype and most likely came away disappointed, but hopefully not to disappointed.

This years team was never a team that was going to contend for a championship or a long push in the knockout stage and I don't think the casual fans or those tuning in realized that. And that's unfortunate because I think it clouds the perception of how good this team could potentially be. This World Cup was never about winning it all, but rather getting to the knockout stage, getting the feet wet, and building the momentum and excitement for the 2026 group playing on home soil.
Click to expand...
Well put....
 
I tuned into to the match with the Netherlands. For soccer to catch wind in America it has to do something to increase scoring and excitement. I understand that you guys who know what is going on in between the sheets can appreciate the matches, but the casual fan gets disinterested real quick.

In America we have fluid sports such as football and basketball which is the bar. They are high scoring with high action. We are used to that. Soccer on TV just doesn't cut it.

They need to find a way to increase shots on goal which will increase scoring. Now, I realize you can't widen the nets as they are already quite large. It's amazing how athletic and how well the goalies can cover those angles and spaces. When watching I found myself wishing for one rule change that would increase the fluidity of the game and increase scoring chances/shots on goal. It would be to have a violation similar to the 10 second violation in basketball to get the ball over mid field. Perhaps a 20 second violation in soccer or around there. I realize it can't really be 10 sec but have some time limit to force the action a bit more and not let players just dribble and lob it back and forth on their side.

I don't know if a back field violation could really work in soccer like in basketball but a rule could be instated that they have so many seconds to get it back in the opponents side. I don't know, they are so skilled they could have a mid field rule I guess. But, having a time limit to get it across mid field after a possession change would surely help and help to increase shots on goal.

As a novice fan, the number of shots on goal is the most disappointing part of watching soccer. Even hockey has more.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
I tuned into to the match with the Netherlands. For soccer to catch wind in America it has to do something to increase scoring and excitement. I understand that you guys who know what is going on in between the sheets can appreciate the matches, but the casual fan gets disinterested real quick.

In America we have fluid sports such as football and basketball which is the bar. They are high scoring with high action. We are used to that. Soccer on TV just doesn't cut it.

They need to find a way to increase shots on goal which will increase scoring. Not, I realize you can't widen the nets as they are already quite large. It's amazing how athletic and how well the goalies can cover those angles and spaces. When watching I found myself wishing for one rule change that would increase the fluidity of the game and increase scoring chances/shots on goal. It would be to have a violation similar to the 10 second violation in basketball to get the ball over mid field. Perhaps a 20 second violation in soccer or around there. I realize it can't really be 10 sec but have some time limit to force the action a bit more and not let players just dribble and lob it back and forth on their side.

I don't know if a back field violation could really work in soccer like in basketball but a rule could be instated that they have so many seconds to get it back in the opponents side. I don't know, they are so skilled they could have a mid field rule I guess. But, having a time limit to get it across mid field would surely help and help to increase shots on goal.

As a novice fan, the number of shots on goal is the most disappointing part of watching soccer. Even hockey has more.
Click to expand...
Funny that you are still high on Ferentz yet you call soccer boring. Nothing is more intense that a scoreless game late between 2 good teams. The action never stops.

Don't know who is good in Iowa but I know there are some good club teams as I've coached against one from IC. Get right up to the field.

The speed athleticism and strategy with 500 plus passes per match leave football behind. I've held practice alongside football practice.. no much more action. Any hs football game has flabby players on the field. Compare that to 6 ft 170 pound athletic guys across the whole field.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
I tuned into to the match with the Netherlands. For soccer to catch wind in America it has to do something to increase scoring and excitement. I understand that you guys who know what is going on in between the sheets can appreciate the matches, but the casual fan gets disinterested real quick.

In America we have fluid sports such as football and basketball which is the bar. They are high scoring with high action. We are used to that. Soccer on TV just doesn't cut it.

They need to find a way to increase shots on goal which will increase scoring. Now, I realize you can't widen the nets as they are already quite large. It's amazing how athletic and how well the goalies can cover those angles and spaces. When watching I found myself wishing for one rule change that would increase the fluidity of the game and increase scoring chances/shots on goal. It would be to have a violation similar to the 10 second violation in basketball to get the ball over mid field. Perhaps a 20 second violation in soccer or around there. I realize it can't really be 10 sec but have some time limit to force the action a bit more and not let players just dribble and lob it back and forth on their side.

I don't know if a back field violation could really work in soccer like in basketball but a rule could be instated that they have so many seconds to get it back in the opponents side. I don't know, they are so skilled they could have a mid field rule I guess. But, having a time limit to get it across mid field after a possession change would surely help and help to increase shots on goal.

As a novice fan, the number of shots on goal is the most disappointing part of watching soccer. Even hockey has more.
Click to expand...
Here's how you make soccer fun to watch...

1) Get rid of goalies

2) Make the goal smaller

3) Instead of a penalty box, have a 10 yd half circle centered on the goal where no one is allowed to go.

4) 8 players instead of 11, with 4 "guards" and 4 "forwards" like 6 on 6 basketball who aren't allowed to cross over to the other end.

5) 20 second clock to get the ball across midfield, 30 second clock to take a shot on goal that has to at least cross part of the off-limits circle.
 
Fryowa said:
Here's how you make soccer fun to watch...

1) Get rid of goalies

2) Make the goal smaller

3) Instead of a penalty box, have a 10 yd half circle centered on the goal where no one is allowed to go.

4) 8 players instead of 11, with 4 "guards" and 4 "forwards" like 6 on 6 basketball who aren't allowed to cross over to the other end.

5) 20 second clock to get the ball across midfield, 30 second clock to take a shot on goal that has to at least cross part of the off-limits circle.
Click to expand...
That will never happen.

The field is bigger than football so tv isn't as close. The game doesn't really stop much so you don't see play reruns 6 times from different angles.


LCasual observers don't understand you can if done right knock your opponent into the next county
 
HawkGold said:
That will never happen.
Click to expand...
I know it won't. But it would make soccer fun to watch.

And before anyone gets their panties all wadded up my favorite sport is baseball and I know full well it comes off boring to people who don't understand the nuances.

But soccer is completely, utterly, 100% unwatchable for me. I'm at peace with it and no one needs to try to explain to me why it's exciting.
 
HawkGold said:
Funny that you are still high on Ferentz yet you call soccer boring. Nothing is more intense that a scoreless game late between 2 good teams. The action never stops.

Don't know who is good in Iowa but I know there are some good club teams as I've coached against one from IC. Get right up to the field.

The speed athleticism and strategy with 500 plus passes per match leave football behind. I've held practice alongside football practice.. no much more action. Any hs football game has flabby players on the field. Compare that to 6 ft 170 pound athletic guys across the whole field.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the athleticism or lack of it. Are you trying to tell me soccer is more entertaining than American football?!! What does Ferentz have to do with soccer? Why do you do the same comparisons for every argument? I don't get it.

I definitely realize there are good club teams and young players in Iowa. Doesn't change the fact that the sport will never, never hold water to American football and basketball in the is country, because those sports are better sports for TV viewing. I realize soccer is better viewed live but it is never going to catch on in this country, as much as the soccer enthusiasts want it to.
 
Fryowa said:
I know it won't. But it would make soccer fun to watch.

And before anyone gets their panties all wadded up my favorite sport is baseball and I know full well it comes off boring to people who don't understand the nuances.

But soccer is completely, utterly, 100% unwatchable for me. I'm at peace with it and no one needs to try to explain to me why it's exciting.
Click to expand...
Baseball is a great example and I was going to mention it. I used to love to watch it but it is almost unwatchable on TV now. Again. football is king because of the pace and entertainment value.

Not sure why enthusiasts of other sports like soccer cant's grasp that. You can. You at least admit it. I appreciate that.
 
Fryowa said:
I know it won't. But it would make soccer fun to watch.

And before anyone gets their panties all wadded up my favorite sport is baseball and I know full well it comes off boring to people who don't understand the nuances.

But soccer is completely, utterly, 100% unwatchable for me. I'm at peace with it and no one needs to try to explain to me why it's exciting.
Click to expand...
BTW I love baseball because of the strategy.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
Baseball is a great example and I was going to mention it. I used to love to watch it but it is almost unwatchable on TV now. Again. football is king because of the pace and entertainment value.

Not sure why enthusiasts of other sports like soccer cant's grasp that. You can. You at least admit it. I appreciate that.
Click to expand...
MLB is almost unwatchable depend on who is pitching.
 
Fryowa said:
I know it won't. But it would make soccer fun to watch.

And before anyone gets their panties all wadded up my favorite sport is baseball and I know full well it comes off boring to people who don't understand the nuances.

But soccer is completely, utterly, 100% unwatchable for me. I'm at peace with it and no one needs to try to explain to me why it's exciting.
Click to expand...
Baseball is a beautiful, nuanced sport to play that is barely watchable nowadays due to the 3 outcome ABs.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
It has nothing to do with the athleticism or lack of it. Are you trying to tell me soccer is more entertaining than American football?!! What does Ferentz have to do with soccer? Why do you do the same comparisons for every argument? I don't get it.

I definitely realize there are good club teams and young players in Iowa. Doesn't change the fact that the sport will never, never hold water to American football and basketball in the is country, because those sports are better sports for TV viewing. I realize soccer is better viewed live but it is never going to catch on in this country, as much as the soccer enthusiasts want it to.
Click to expand...
130th best offense. That is all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top