4 Ways High School Soccer Programs Weaken the American Talent Pool
Unlike other American sports like gridiron football, school teams aren’t the most reliable source of recruitment for top tier teams in soccer. There’s exceptions to the rule of course; both Cyle Larin and Tajon Buchanan, two of Canada’s best players, got their first professional contracts through being drafted from their respective universities, and one of the MLS’s best midfield prospects, Aidan Morris, played at Indiana University.
Most of the time, however, collegiate players either just stop playing to pursue a career elsewhere or end up playing for subpar clubs. In both cases, these players aren’t even close to being good enough to represent their countries at the international stage. On the other hand, most high — ceiling youth prospects simply don’t play for schools and know at a young age that soccer is their future. I mean, there’s a reason why both Christian Pulisic and Gio Reyna had the guts to move to Germany at such young ages.
However, that’s not to say that it’s impossible for players at the school level to be better. A lot of these guys have the potential to be top quality players, but I’d argue that playing in high school soccer programs is one of the worst things a prospective player can do. Some of the practices by high school coaches simply destroy their players’ chances of ever developing into high quality talents.
Do note that some of the things I talk about might not apply to all American high school soccer programs, but these things certainly occur at my high school, and I’m sure they happen at other schools too. Also, none of these are in any particular order of significance. I’d say they all have a part in making American youth soccer not as good as it could possibly be.
- Making players do cross country or track in the preseason or offseason.
I know that in some regions, soccer is a fall season sport; in Orange County, however, it’s a winter sport. The coach at my school always incentivizes some of his lower level players to do cross country in the fall and track in the spring as a form of offseason conditioning.
From a traditional American athletic perspective, this is considered good. Players need to stay in shape year — round, and with soccer being a very cardio — intensive sport, why not let players work their cardio when season is over?
The issue, however, does not lie in whether or not conditioning is physically beneficial, because trust me — it is. That being said, this practice is bad for development for two reasons.
One, players will end up relying on their athleticism to be dominant on the soccer pitch. In soccer meme culture, we call these types of players as “pace merchants.” This may work in your varsity soccer match against kids who are all below 6 feet, if your entire squad is that physically superior, it may even win you a league title.
However, an overreliance on athleticism sets these kids up for failure when they try to pursue careers at a professional level. American players for the longest time ever have been known as athletic, hard-working players, but lacking capabilities on the dribble or in tight spaces; moreover, the extreme emphasis on physical conditioning in youth programs is, in part, a main factor as to why our talent pool was lacking in technical players for the longest time ever.
I referenced two of America’s best prospects in the modern era, Christian Pulisic and Gio Reyna, earlier. Besides both starting their senior careers at the same club, Borussia Dortmund, they also both began their youth careers not at schools, but at American clubs. Pulisic spent most of his youth development at Pennsylvania Classics, while Reyna was a product of the New York City FC academy.
Secondly, the time in offseason spent running endlessly in cross country and track could be more wisely spent improving technique. Improvements in technical ability are most easy to make at younger ages. Past the age of 17, it’s incredibly difficult. As with anything, there are sometimes exceptions to this rule. Joe Scally, before moving to Borussia Monchengladbach, was one of those athletic, hardworking Americans that couldn’t do anything on the ball. Upon his move to Germany, however, he’s improved astronomically in his ability on the ball.
However, I can’t think of anyone else in the USMNT pool who had that kind of 180 when it came to technical ability, and it just comes to show that teenagers need to practice it at a young age. Unfortunately, however, the best way to improve technicality is rarely ever utilized in American high school youth programs.
2. Not investing in futsal programs.
Whenever you watch a Brazilian player, you can almost always count on one thing — flashy dribbling. There’s a reason why Neymar, Vinicius Jr., Rodrygo, Raphinha, and Antony are some of the most fun players to watch in European leagues nowadays.
Such swagger and flair is developed by spending hundreds, if not thousands, of hours in a compressed pitch or court where passing lanes aren’t always open. When we train players to be able to bail their team out of pressure through nifty dribbling as opposed to just passing, it adds an extra dimension to the squad.
Now, one of the questions people sometimes ask me is, “William, where in the heck is a school going to find the money to run a futsal program?”
To that, I answer with this; as long as a school has a gym, it can have a futsal program. All you really need to buy is two small goals. I understand that the ethos in many high school fall or winter sports teams that spring is the “rest season,” where players either join a different sport or just take those months off. That’s fine if the goal is to win some high school silverware. That’s not fine, however, if the goal is to develop talented, young Americans for future success in soccer when the level inevitably gets higher and more difficult.
3. Mistaking “kickball” for “total soccer.”
One of the stereotypes regarding the Eredivisie is that it’s an attacking league. You can always count on there being plenty of goals and shambolic defending. As such, games are always open ended and there’s never any down time.
My high school program tried to replicate this “total soccer” ethos by emphasing forward ball progression, or “verticality” as Gregg Berhalter likes to call it. I actually like this a lot; I absolutely hate back passes (hence, why I think Sebastian Lletget shouldn’t be in the USMNT pool), and it’s not as if I’m the only out there that hates it too (I’m looking at you, Ralf Rangnick).
However, the issue is the way that my high school coach wanted the ball progression to occur. Instead of trying to progress the ball from the defensive third into the final third through the use of playmakers in the midfield, our team relied on one thing, and one thing only.
Long balls. Lots. Of. Long. Balls.
Now don’t get me wrong; there’s a time for direct play, and if you’re in the need of a goal in the dying minutes, I have no issue with playing route one soccer as an emergency tactic. However, when it’s your entire game plan, you end up with what some people in media call “kickball.” Teams just start kicking the ball back and forth without any real rhythm or purpose except to hopefully capitalize off a defensive error or lapse in concentration.
Now, I know that a use of long balls is technically a big part of German transitional soccer, as there’s a notion that defenders aren’t good enough technically to play possession — based soccer. Although I disagree with that notion, it still cannot be denied that this the ability to score consistently off long balls is in part only made possible if the offense is prudent and technically — gifted. I feel like I’m beating a dead horse with this talk about technicality, but I hope that just comes to show how much American players lack technical capability.
Maybe it works in the high school and collegiate level, but trust me. You’re not going to get very far in a World Cup if your instant instinct is to just punt the ball forward.
4. Playing on turf.
Out of all of the possible issues with high school soccer programs, this may be a relatively minor one, but combined with the others, it just hinders American youths even more. It’s commonly well — known that professional players prefer playing on grass; ball control is made easier, and injuries are less common as grass surfaces are softer than that of turf surfaces.
Injuries are always horrible, but they’re especially detrimental to younger players who need to be able to develop their skills as much as they can when they’re young. Moreover, as teenagers don’t have their muscles developed until they’re older, an early injury may be difficult to recover from.
That being said, I do understand that a grass field is much more costly to maintain than a turf field. But if a program has the money, this is an investment that should most definitely be made.
