Better one-on-one skill

Avoiding one-on-one situations needs to be a thing of the past. How do we get around this? We encourage dribbling. Don’t yell at players if they lose the ball. Don’t scream and pout if players dribble. “Creativity takes courage, ” Henri Matisse. We have the Breitner’s and Rivaldo’s, however, they keep getting fed the same message: “Cut it out.” And they will continue receiving that message as long as the soccer culture remains the same.
   
   A few keys to making one-on-one skill better are: individual rehearsal of moves; one-on-one simulations; a cultural understanding and acceptance that dribbling must be done more; acceptance of failure; style in dribbling.
   Our basketball culture has everything right. We take the best dribblers, and make them good passers (most of them already are), which is the make-up of the NBA. Soccer has to adopt that mentality. If they dribble too much, then that’s for the coach to figure out. Let the players play, and dribbling should be a “green light” for them. The mental side to this is most important. Allow the dribbling and it will work out in the long run. Construct schemes in practice to implement dribbling to the point where it becomes normal. One-on-one competition should be a regular routine. Actors in a play or a movie don’t read the script once or twice and then jump right in. I’m sure they can, and I’m sure it’s been done, but the best method would be to memorize the lines, and from that point, once that has been established, the actors can go off script and improvise, and always be able to return to the script from there. And the best way to know, and memorize, the lines, is to practice by repetition. The director has a story to tell, and he or she will probably be okay with a little improvisation as long as the actors have the story in mind. After all, in plays there are times when a mistake will be made, or an actor forgets their line, and improvisation is the only way to get back on track. In movies, improvisation might be a technique used to enhance the scene. Either way, the actors must have the main line of the story in mind, to keep it in line with the director’s vision, and the best way to achieve this is to know the lines by memory, hence, repetition in rehearsal. In soccer, you have to approach one-on-one skill the same way. Dribbling is often improvisational, and at some point the players must fall back in line with the script – or the structured passing system they should be familiar with. Dribbling (and the passing system) must be rehearsed over and over, until the players get sick of it. It has to be engrained in their muscle memory. You can’t expect a player to do one-one-one drills for one-fourth of a practice, only one day in the week, and step into a game and perform. It’s insanity. There are thousands of people showing up for games. All eyes are on the players. Crowds can sense fear, or stage fright, in a heart beat. Everyone’s going to be somewhat nervous. Lawrence Olivier threw up before every live performance. He was the best actor of his day. No matter who you are there will be some stage fright. Practice is the best place to get the jitters out. Some think scrimmaging in practice is enough and others set aside actual one-on-one simulations. The one-on-one simulations need to be a stronger focus for American teams. This and the understanding from everyone – players, coaches and fans – that dribbling will be a constant artifice in games is the next important step in getting the players comfortable with consistently taking the spot light in big games. 

Breitner, a good one-on-one attacker, in action. Youtube "West Germany full games" for footage.

The Four Year Review: America's Quest for the Cup

The Four Year Review begins now. This is a review of each national team game, from the men's side, from 2014-2018, preparing for the upcoming World Cup. We take a look at what went wrong, what went right, and everything in between. 

Note: 
Women's soccer program - you're on the right track! You have a handful of victories. Just as in grade school the guys are trying to keep up. I think you'll learn from this review, from all the mistakes, and all the mishaps, which will put into perspective all the things you might be "doing right." Some women's games will be covered, but really, as a compliment, you've got it covered. You're not so much a work in progress. The guys team is like the before shot from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy - he's got tattered jeans that are ten years old, mismatch socks, a shirt that he uses for work, the gym, nights out on the town and weddings. And, he doesn't know it's a fopaw, or, however you spell it. What do we do? If David Beckham (see photos) is the "biggest metrosexual in Britain," as he's known in England, we hire the "biggest metrosexual south of Britain, or north of Compton" (whichever way you want to look at it) Jurgen Klinsmann, who's a metro with an accent; he quickly re-arranges the uniform, selecting a whole new wardrobe for the coaching staff, with a very cultured, European touch; all looks ranging from modern-sheik, to Ivy league school boy, 1925. He recognizes there's a lot of work to do. As he should. As there is.  

United States vs Korea Republic
2-1-14
Friendly 
2-0 
Stub Hub Center, Carson, California
Attendance: 27,000

Korea, whether it be North or South, has had a string of good World Cup appearances starting with "the biggest upset" over Italy in 1966, the claim to fame of almost knocking Maradona out of the 1986 tournament, and a very good showing in 2002 when they had one of the best teams on any given day. Their fans were not in full support - as they were in 2002, lifting their team to a higher ground, with chants that made the English supporters look like a barber shop quartet - and on this day they lost an interesting contest, to the host 2-0. Both teams looked focused. Not much of a window-shattering event. 


Known by the English media as the "biggest metrosexual in Britain."

Thank you Rich, for your thoughts on American college soccer. 
   College soccer has traditionally been one of our best outlets for competition. We are unique in this respect, as the rest of the world favors a system of professional farm teams. Youth players grow up in a system provided by one of the professional clubs. When they graduate high school, the usual course of action is to play professionally, at some level, as opposed to the American road which typically is straight to college, before playing professionally. The college system is great, and it has provided the United States that "semi-professional" league we've lacked for so many years. As a youngster, I saw one of the best games you could see, on par with France-Germany 1982, or France-Brazil 1986. It was around 1990, in a game featuring two of the most storied programs in U.S. history, Indiana and SLU, with outstanding players on the field ranging from Chad Deering, Kenny Snow, Mark Santel to Brian McBride. These were the guys I emulated coming up and I only hope a little of their game was reflected in the way I played. The place was packed and they put on a show; there was some serious talent on the field and when I say it was a good game - with out a doubt - these guys brought it. "Everybody" my age wanted to play like them. In the 1980s and before even, there were few chances for players to play professionally. The NASL, and the MISL - which rode in on the waves of excitement from the New York Cosmos - were about it. Players from the generations of Bob Bradley, Bruce Arena, Jerry Yeagley (and even earlier; former President Bush Sr. played for Yale), didn't have many options, other than college. During those days, it was the highest outlet for players. Unfortunately, the U.S. was definitely in the dark ages of soccer back then. Things have improved dramatically as more and more American players are getting opportunities to play in the domestic professional leagues - MLS, USL, indoor and various off-shoot outdoor leagues - and a few players - a few more than in the 80s or 90s - play abroad. The college system provides a competitive outlet for domestic players, allowing some to receive scholarships, and bringing many foreign players here to enhance their education. There are still some campuses that lack a soccer program largely because the administration does not see enough money coming in from game related revenue. This, of course, has a lot to do with the popularity factor of U.S. soccer, or lack thereof. With its continual growth - seeing the expansion of the MLS, and the exuberant sell outs, from teams like Portland or Seattle - soccer is nudging its way to being the fourth most popular sport in the country. It used to be tennis, but that's falling quickly, at least, in comparison to the popularity of tennis in the pre-90s era. 
   We're stuck in a system that does not have as many professional outlets as many European nations. Because we don't have many professional soccer opportunities available, partly because the rest of the world is still on the fence when it comes to respecting the American talent level, the competition is even greater than in other places. A lot of players are competing for a small number of openings. In that regard, college is a great asset. Whether Universities provide a soccer team or not, soccer is growing so rapidly I would think those that don't have a team will change that in order to accommodate the vast amount of players that have a desire to represent their school. 

Outside Defenders

   So much can be said about theory, and the practical approach to a game. It can get a little boring for some. You should be able to apply a game strategy, or some idea about the game, to a team from any generation. At the same time, there is a lot to be said about which players are available at any given time. People around the world have complaints about lineups that go back twenty years and more. Some Italians still can't figure out why Signori didn't play as much in the 1994 World Cup. Riquelme and Ronaldinho didn't make their teams in 2010, with much speculation. There will always be disagreements, and different approaches, but the common thread to building a good team should be the skillful back line, with the ability to attack on offense. 
   Right now, in this era, the United States men’s lineup should look something like this:

                                                  Redondo

   
Eddie Jones   Time Ream    Michael Bradley   E. Buddle

                      (B. Convey)                                                    (Zussi)
Freddy Adu     Jose Torres                Stuart Holden            A. Yedlin 

                      Clint Dempsey           Breck Shea

   Whereas, in the olden days, some twelve to fourteen years ago, for the American soccer fans familiar with those times, it should have looked something like this (considering they were active around the same time):

                                                    Friedel

                      (Thomas Dooley)                                         (Cobi Jones)
Roy Lassiter      C. Reyna          Eddie Pope                         Josh Wolff

Donovan           Chad Deering            Joe Max Moore        Chris Henderson

                                           Clint Mathis   Preki

   I only hope that a cynic will look at these lineups, scoff, laugh, and shrug it aside as lunacy. For one, America’s proven that it can stay consistently mediocre in World Cup rounds; so, why not try something completely different than what we’ve been doing? And, secondly, they’re dead wrong. 
   In a few years, when these guys can’t play anymore there will be new players wearing the uniform. If they’re playing outside defender they should look like Yedlin, Cafu or Philipp Lahm. Usually these guys are forwards that get transitioned to outside defender. Lahm or Cafu could be very good forwards for some team out there. It so happens they’re outside defenders, which is a good thing. The outside defenders need to be former forwards. They need to have an attacking skill set; an attacking mindset. They need to have good ball skills. They need to be quick, fast and crafty. Former U.S. players that could have been very effective outside defenders would be Josh Wolff, Cobi Jones, Roy Lassiter. 

   The outside defenders need to be encouraged to attack. As the play is building up with possession on the left side of the field, the outside right defender should be ready to make an overlapping run past the outside midfielder, or forward on the right side. This pass won’t happen every time, but it should be there as a conscious option for all the players. Often the outside defender is stationary, so to speak, completing the swing of possession from one side of the field to the other. They’re like the wall on one side of the field, hugging the sideline, giving their teammates the means to pass the ball from one sideline to the other, and while this is happening they should also be alert to make those overlapping runs, possibly releasing a through pass to cause danger in the opponent’s end. (Whether this turns out to be a one on one with the goalie, a chance to set up a teammate with a pass for a shot, or, cause for the player to retreat and re-establish possession is another issue.) The best players to make these attacking runs and to accept these passes are former forwards. When they’re put into attacking positions their instincts to create good scoring opportunities are naturally going to be better than over-trained, lifetime defenders. Former forwards are better suited to dribble at opposing defenders, creating more interesting chances at goal. And this is what American soccer lacks: interesting play. Over the years, when you look at the players, the talent is there, in the form of a large pool of players waiting to go in, however a lot of the positions were filled with heavy-footed defender types. Time and time again foreigners reflect on the American style of play and they say it lacks a certain “something.” They’re correct. It’s hard to put a finger on it, but they’re right. We are usually athletic enough to defensively keep the score close. I don’t think defense is our number one cause for concern. American players lack a certain confidence, a certain style, a certain swagger. When it comes to basketball we have way too much confidence, style and swagger. Even country boys from Indiana or Iowa have a flair they stole from Isiah Thomas. The U.S. can field any basketball team and it’s going to look right. Not everybody from America is going to dominate like Lebron, but whoever you throw on the court they’re going to know what they’re doing, and it will show to any observer.
   So why can’t we get it right with soccer? Why do we lose any swagger we might have had when we go up against Argentina or Brazil? They psyche us out, that’s why. They look down on their opponent. They’ve already decided, based on past success, that they’re the standard. There is no higher. If they’ve decided this, you can’t take it away from them. When they look down on another team, that other team is hurting psychologically. If you show a little swagger and they look at you like you’re a punk, you’re going to feel like a punk. And then you look over to your teammates and they have the same look on their face, and in their body language; now everybody has admitted defeat. “Brazil’s better. If we show an moves we’re just stealing it from them.” Whereas, to the contrary, the attitude needs to be firm across the team: Everybody has to be skilled in the first place. That’s the prerequisite to get on the national team. Must have skill, must have dribbling moves, must want to use them.
   Then the team has to be united together, in win or loss, and take on the “better team” for the duration of the game, not giving an inch. If you let them punk you out, they’ll be glad to punk you out and leave you thinking you shouldn’t have played the sport in the first place. It’s similar to the lesser known Charles Barkley and Chuckie Brown story. Chuckie Brown was one of those NBA players you never heard of. He was one of the bench players. During a game against Barkley’s team Brown got subbed in and Barkley said, “Chuckie who?” I don’t think Chuckie had a good game. I don’t think his confidence was too high. What Chuckie needed was for his teammates to back him up, dish him the ball, allowing him to get touches, creating a little confidence. The game plan might have been different; Chuckie may have been designated to only set picks – I don’t know. But as an individual, Chuckie needed to get some boards, get a little physical – something to put Barkley in his place. You can’t be a “Chuckie who?” Don’t let Germany, Brazil or Argentina “Chuckie who?” you.