LunchTime said:

---

concordtom said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Here is a soccer topic to kick around. Many decades ago, Pele predicted that African nations would rule the world of soccer.
Well, he was right and he was wrong.
While African nations have not fared well in the World Cup, there is a noticeable increase in players of African heritage dominating the world stage. Look how many players of different skin tones are representing teams such as England, Belgium, France, to name a few.

It seems that the US suffers a bit of the same fate as African nations. We lack the je ne se quoi soccer culture or awareness that allows us to succeed, though we have the athletes.

---

CT, you have an excellent point there. Around a year ago, I counted six out of starting 11 in the France team to be of African heritage. Zindane (sp?) who is arguably the greatest French footballer of all time is north African (although, botn in France, I believe) and Henry (the former French capitan and current Belgium assistant coach) is African. And, then, there is the current #10 ...

Go Bears!

---

So much of what goes on in youth soccer is the US appears to be dictated by affordability. By that I mean exposure for your players costs big bucks. I don't want to argue quality of coaching, etc., but if you do not go through the expensive "club soccer" route your child's chances become restricted especially as they age. It does not mean it is impossible, and scholarships are available, but our experience is the skin tone decreases as age increases. Not right, not good, and not even totally true, but generally speaking the total cost of soccer goes way beyond club fees. Travel is dictated the higher you go, and with that the further you travel, whether that be right or wrong.

To point out the ridiculousness of this, ECNL playoffs just finished in June/July and almost every winner in the girls divisions were from California---North or South. Yet, these coaches feel the need throughout the year to travel to New Jersey (PDA), Florida, Seattle to play teams from all over. Where we live there are eight solid women's soccer teams within a 50 mile radius (four within a 15 mile radius), and for the most part they are all good, yet they must travel and pay coaches expenses in doing so. Tough for economically challenged to keep up.

---

Article on this affordability issue killing US soccer:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook/2018/07/16/whats-killing-youth-soccer-in-america-is-also-hurting-most-every-other-sport/#63c411801ea8

---

As that article points out, the cost argument is BS. The problem is kids dont play outside. Everything has to be organized and supervised. Modric learned to play in the hallways and parking lot of a hotel he lived in during a war. He won the Golden Ball... The french players learned on the street.

If you want to dominate, let kids play.

If you make it expensive, it becomes expensive. You dont need money to kick around a ball.


Also, FWIW, I do think video games are a direct competitor. The prize pool for Fortnite tournys is $100million. Last year it was $90m total for gaming. The growth is HUGE. You dont have to participate in hyper organized groups to play, you get found relatively easily if you play and are good... Video games are what sandlot ball used to be.

---

Yeah, but we have all those distractions and still produce athletes in other sports.

HoopDreams said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I'm happy France won (one of the teams I root for every WC) and they deserved the win, but wasn't that first goal on the PK off a flop?

---

The first France goal to make it 1-0 was the one that was off the Griezmann (sp?) flop leading to a free kick (not PK) from outside the box that resulted in the Mandzukic own goal header.

It was the second France goal to make it 2-1 was off the PK, which was on a handball, not a flop. Of course you could potentially argue about whether the handball deserved a PK. Despite having played and watched soccer a good amount, I'm never really clear on how that is called. In 2002 I think, a German defender standing at his own goal-line blocked a US shot that was going right into the goal directly with his hand and nothing was called. The Germans were the better team and went on to win 1-0, but that kind of sucked. So who knows.

The 3rd and 4th French goals were all class though. Was rooting for Croatia but, I think France was (somewhat) the better team.

---

thanks. thx for correction. it was a free kick not a PK

my question was if that free quick was due to a french player flopping. just wanted to hear peoples opinion. here is link to highlights...first highlight shown:

https://www.foxsports.com/soccer/video/1277347395717

---

Personally, I thought he just slipped. I didn't think it was a flop. Is that not reviewable on VAR? Sure changed the complexion of the game.

GMP said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I'm happy France won (one of the teams I root for every WC) and they deserved the win, but wasn't that first goal on the PK off a flop?

---

The first France goal to make it 1-0 was the one that was off the Griezmann (sp?) flop leading to a free kick (not PK) from outside the box that resulted in the Mandzukic own goal header.

It was the second France goal to make it 2-1 was off the PK, which was on a handball, not a flop. Of course you could potentially argue about whether the handball deserved a PK. Despite having played and watched soccer a good amount, I'm never really clear on how that is called. In 2002 I think, a German defender standing at his own goal-line blocked a US shot that was going right into the goal directly with his hand and nothing was called. The Germans were the better team and went on to win 1-0, but that kind of sucked. So who knows.

The 3rd and 4th French goals were all class though. Was rooting for Croatia but, I think France was (somewhat) the better team.

---

thanks. thx for correction. it was a free kick not a PK

my question was if that free quick was due to a french player flopping. just wanted to hear peoples opinion. here is link to highlights...first highlight shown:

https://www.foxsports.com/soccer/video/1277347395717

---

Personally, I thought he just slipped. I didn't think it was a flop. Is that not reviewable on VAR? Sure changed the complexion of the game.

---

a slip is a better explanation than a penalty. I thought the ball handler fell and the defender did everything he could to avoid contact. either a flop or a slip, it shouldn't have been a free kick.

Yogi Bear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

concordtom said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Here is a soccer topic to kick around. Many decades ago, Pele predicted that African nations would rule the world of soccer.
Well, he was right and he was wrong.
While African nations have not fared well in the World Cup, there is a noticeable increase in players of African heritage dominating the world stage. Look how many players of different skin tones are representing teams such as England, Belgium, France, to name a few.

It seems that the US suffers a bit of the same fate as African nations. We lack the je ne se quoi soccer culture or awareness that allows us to succeed, though we have the athletes.

---

CT, you have an excellent point there. Around a year ago, I counted six out of starting 11 in the France team to be of African heritage. Zindane (sp?) who is arguably the greatest French footballer of all time is north African (although, botn in France, I believe) and Henry (the former French capitan and current Belgium assistant coach) is African. And, then, there is the current #10 ...

Go Bears!

---

So much of what goes on in youth soccer is the US appears to be dictated by affordability. By that I mean exposure for your players costs big bucks. I don't want to argue quality of coaching, etc., but if you do not go through the expensive "club soccer" route your child's chances become restricted especially as they age. It does not mean it is impossible, and scholarships are available, but our experience is the skin tone decreases as age increases. Not right, not good, and not even totally true, but generally speaking the total cost of soccer goes way beyond club fees. Travel is dictated the higher you go, and with that the further you travel, whether that be right or wrong.

To point out the ridiculousness of this, ECNL playoffs just finished in June/July and almost every winner in the girls divisions were from California---North or South. Yet, these coaches feel the need throughout the year to travel to New Jersey (PDA), Florida, Seattle to play teams from all over. Where we live there are eight solid women's soccer teams within a 50 mile radius (four within a 15 mile radius), and for the most part they are all good, yet they must travel and pay coaches expenses in doing so. Tough for economically challenged to keep up.

---

Article on this affordability issue killing US soccer:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook/2018/07/16/whats-killing-youth-soccer-in-america-is-also-hurting-most-every-other-sport/#63c411801ea8

---

As that article points out, the cost argument is BS. The problem is kids dont play outside. Everything has to be organized and supervised. Modric learned to play in the hallways and parking lot of a hotel he lived in during a war. He won the Golden Ball... The french players learned on the street.

If you want to dominate, let kids play.

If you make it expensive, it becomes expensive. You dont need money to kick around a ball.


Also, FWIW, I do think video games are a direct competitor. The prize pool for Fortnite tournys is $100million. Last year it was $90m total for gaming. The growth is HUGE. You dont have to participate in hyper organized groups to play, you get found relatively easily if you play and are good... Video games are what sandlot ball used to be.

---

Yeah, but we have all those distractions and still produce athletes in other sports.

---

Exactly.

Soccer just isnt popular. People play basketball in the street constantly. Kids play sadlot baseball less than they did, so we import players now. Football dosnt have a lot of competition outside of the US... who knows if we would be good if any other country cared. Olympic sports seem to be an exception where it requires a lot of investment, even in small countries.

But Why isnt Soccer like Basketball? it certainly isnt the cost. It is because kids play outside for one, and are organized from birth on the other.

In an earlier thread (after the US failed to qualify for the World Cup), one of our other posters laid out a case that the US has already improved their soccer pipeline, but we are waiting for those players to come of age (the recent failure was an example of how this pipeline had not been maintained well in the last 4-8 years).

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/76218/replies/1409435

There is some evidence for this. The Under-20 and Under-17 teams did well (quarterfinals) in their recent World Cup tournaments. Those players should be coming of age in time for the next World Cup.

Definitely a foul. Doesn't take a lot of contact to bring an attacker moving at speed down.

Replay from behind confirms it was a foul.

blungld said:

---

Here are the changes I would make to soccer (knowing full well they will never happen and that they will elicit criticism):

1) Eliminate use of the head. It would reduce head injuries, it would keep the game to the skill set of the feet, it would diminish the importance of aerial set plays and encourage open play.

2) And here is a radical idea. Again, to encourage open play. Set play goals equal one point (free kicks, corners, and penalties). Open play goals are worth two points. Goals from distance (outside the box) without deflection are worth 3 points. I hate that so many matches are determined by a hand ball or a dive in the box. It would reduce incentive to cheat and keep the ball at the feet.

Both ideas are meant to reward team passing and individual foot skills which is what the sport is ultimately about.

---

Blasphemy.

BearSD said:

---

concordtom said:

---

blungld said:

---

Here are the changes I would make to soccer (knowing full well they will never happen and that they will elicit criticism):

1) Eliminate use of the head. It would reduce head injuries, it would keep the game to the skill set of the feet, it would diminish the importance of aerial set plays and encourage open play.

2) And here is a radical idea. Again, to encourage open play. Set play goals equal one point (free kicks, corners, and penalties). Open play goals are worth two points. Goals from distance (outside the box) without deflection are worth 3 points. I hate that so many matches are determined by a hand ball or a dive in the box. It would reduce incentive to cheat and keep the ball at the feet.

Both ideas are meant to reward team passing and individual foot skills which is what the sport is ultimately about.

---

I agree with eliminating heading. I'd like to see that change.
But I think you've got it backwards. You don't want to encourage just wildly taking long range shots, otherwise it's goal kick city all game long. Balls scored on the ground are worth more from closer in.

Here are some of our wild proposals:
1. Remove goalie
2. Remove heading
3. Remove offsides AFTER ball has already been advanced one time past the 18 yard marker with offsides having been in place.
4. 1 point for goals scored from distance, 2 points for goals scored from inside the 18 yard box, 3 points for balls scored from inside the 6 yard box (and since no GK, go ahead and change the size of boxes to be more arc like.
5. Decide ties by time of possession in the attacking third.

Now then, what about subs? Are we going to keep 11 on the field? Are we going to run players to exhaustion? How about 8 vs 8 with free "tag" subs on the fly,

---

With that last one about subs, you'd be playing arena soccer instead of real soccer. My kids played that when they were much younger. Everyone except the GK runs at full speed for 3-4 minutes and then they're subbed out and a new shift of players runs on to the field without play stopping.

Banning heading has some appeal because head-to-head accidents when two players are going for the ball can be pretty bad. One big issue is that corner kicks would have very little value if heading is not permitted. I could see coaches encouraging the defense to kick the ball out of play over the goal line instead of the sideline on the theory that a corner kick that can't be floated into the box for a header isn't very dangerous. One possibility would be, for balls out of play over the goal line, giving the offense a free kick that could be taken near the sideline from any place of the offense's choosing, not just from the corner.

As for the offsides rule -- I could see changing the rule so that offsides doesn't apply to any ball that is hit from inside the 18-yard-line extended. But expanding this further to make any pass free of the offsides rule as long as the offense once carried the ball past that line would be too much.

---

This sub rule already exists. It's called college soccer.

Another reason the USA can't compete.

LunchTime said:

---

concordtom said:

---

GMP said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

It was the second France goal to make it 2-1 was off the PK, which was on a handball, not a flop. Of course you could potentially argue about whether the handball deserved a PK. Despite having played and watched soccer a good amount, I'm never really clear on how that is called. In 2002 I think, a German defender standing at his own goal-line blocked a US shot that was going right into the goal directly with his hand and nothing was called. The Germans were the better team and went on to win 1-0, but that kind of sucked. So who knows.

---

The video review process has adjusted many of these. I suspect that US-Germany play would have been ruled a handball and a PK given if there had been video review in 2002.

By the rules I think you have to call that if you see it. The hand was away from the body (not tucked in close) and clearly blocked France's attempt to attack the goal.

---

The German player also should have been red-carded. It was blatantly intentional. Germany would have been playing with 10, and the U.S. would have had a great shot to win. It might have changed the course of U.S. soccer, as a win would have put us into a very winnable semifinal against South Korea. No chance we beat Brazil in the final. But the U.S. making the final would have been special.

---

VAR is a fantastic new add for high level soccer!
As discussed by FoxSports on set, there were NO direct red cards and much less simulation.
Eye In The Sky has been HUGE.

I recall this handball, and you make a good point about the ramifications. #sad

---

There were no direct red cards? What do you mean by that? In the final? Group? Knockout? Maybe Direct Red Card means something else to Fox? (Other than a straight red, not two yellow?)

I heard them say that, as well, and thought it must have been just a talking head saying stupid things because they were wrong after the 6th day. There was one in a Japan game for a handball in like the first 5 minutes of play.

I cant remember if Boateng was a second yellow or red after a very hard foul, But Lang was a straight red in the 94th minute against Sweden in the round of 16 for denying a goal scoring opportunity. A Russian was also shown a red.

But that is at least two direct reds. Maybe 4.

---

Definitely were send offs at this cup but numbers were way down. Not due to VAR though. FIFA instructions to referees the likely reason.

therealputyournameonit said:

---

BearSD said:

---

concordtom said:

---

blungld said:

---

Here are the changes I would make to soccer (knowing full well they will never happen and that they will elicit criticism):

1) Eliminate use of the head. It would reduce head injuries, it would keep the game to the skill set of the feet, it would diminish the importance of aerial set plays and encourage open play.

2) And here is a radical idea. Again, to encourage open play. Set play goals equal one point (free kicks, corners, and penalties). Open play goals are worth two points. Goals from distance (outside the box) without deflection are worth 3 points. I hate that so many matches are determined by a hand ball or a dive in the box. It would reduce incentive to cheat and keep the ball at the feet.

Both ideas are meant to reward team passing and individual foot skills which is what the sport is ultimately about.

---

I agree with eliminating heading. I'd like to see that change.
But I think you've got it backwards. You don't want to encourage just wildly taking long range shots, otherwise it's goal kick city all game long. Balls scored on the ground are worth more from closer in.

Here are some of our wild proposals:
1. Remove goalie
2. Remove heading
3. Remove offsides AFTER ball has already been advanced one time past the 18 yard marker with offsides having been in place.
4. 1 point for goals scored from distance, 2 points for goals scored from inside the 18 yard box, 3 points for balls scored from inside the 6 yard box (and since no GK, go ahead and change the size of boxes to be more arc like.
5. Decide ties by time of possession in the attacking third.

Now then, what about subs? Are we going to keep 11 on the field? Are we going to run players to exhaustion? How about 8 vs 8 with free "tag" subs on the fly,

---

With that last one about subs, you'd be playing arena soccer instead of real soccer. My kids played that when they were much younger. Everyone except the GK runs at full speed for 3-4 minutes and then they're subbed out and a new shift of players runs on to the field without play stopping.

Banning heading has some appeal because head-to-head accidents when two players are going for the ball can be pretty bad. One big issue is that corner kicks would have very little value if heading is not permitted. I could see coaches encouraging the defense to kick the ball out of play over the goal line instead of the sideline on the theory that a corner kick that can't be floated into the box for a header isn't very dangerous. One possibility would be, for balls out of play over the goal line, giving the offense a free kick that could be taken near the sideline from any place of the offense's choosing, not just from the corner.

As for the offsides rule -- I could see changing the rule so that offsides doesn't apply to any ball that is hit from inside the 18-yard-line extended. But expanding this further to make any pass free of the offsides rule as long as the offense once carried the ball past that line would be too much.

---

This sub rule already exists. It's called college soccer.

Another reason the USA can't compete.

---

Agreed about college soccer. I will resist the temptation to rant about that.

Back in 1994 when the US had a good run in the World Cup at home, hopes were high for the sport's domestic potential, but it seems that the sport is mired in a plateau of mediocrity over the long term.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/sports/world-cup/soccer-youth-decline.html

But why does the women's team succeed?

Cal88 said:

---

Back in 1994 when the US had a good run in the World Cup at home, hopes were high for the sport's domestic potential, but it seems that the sport is mired in a plateau of mediocrity over the long term.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/sports/world-cup/soccer-youth-decline.html

---

Eh, the US has fielded multiple World Cup teams that were better than that one (2002, 2010, and 2014). 2018 was the most obvious out-and-out disappointment, but it's too early to say if this is part of a new trend or just a temporary slump.

True, the best result was in 2002 when the USMNT eliminated Figo's Portugal in group play.

going4roses said:

---

But why does the women's team succeed?

---

The level of women's soccer is abysmally low, the sport is nowhere near as developed as other women's sports like tennis or say, volleyball. The world champion US women's team would lose big to any 5th division semi-pro team from Europe. The worst team in the last world cup, Panama or Saudi Arabia, would beat the USWNT by 10 goals plus.

The countries that compete with the US in women's soccer are a pretty narrow subset of countries where some women also play soccer (Scandinavia, Canada and to a lesser extent Japan, Germany, England). The international landscape fo women's soccer is not a very competitive one at this point, it might get there in a few decades.

going4roses said:

---

But why does the women's team succeed?

---

The USA got in on the ground floor of women's soccer, which as a major international sport has only really existed for what, 20 years or so? We had a much more developed and talented group of women's players than most any other country. Meanwhile, most other countries have spent decades building up their men's teams.