[washingtonismoney]

"Best athletes" is a bit of a cliche by this point -- and unfortunately not useful for the U.S., who are already regarded as extremely good athletes on the world stage.* While I suppose there's additional benefit to getting even more athletic, it's probably not the most obvious place to improve. Instead, the U.S. should be focusing on improving the skill and soccer IQ of players rather than getting better run-jump-strength guys.** That is, it should be finding and building players like Steph Curry (who thrive because of skill and creativity) rather than the best decathletes ever.

Anyway the discussions are a bit inappropriate. Long-time followers of the U.S. know that the talent has never been better. I repeat this a lot but I feel I have to! It's just true. I was chatting with a friend who's also a close follower of the team, and we both were expressing wonderment that the team has, like, fifty viable left back options -- while in 2009-13 they had to scrounge around some real trash. The team looks bad because a very dim coach put together a bad roster and selected the worst possible options of an already-bad roster.

So the U.S. development system could stand to get better, but if current trends hold things will work out. Maybe very slowly, but they will.

* (the typical European coach comment about a U.S. player is that he tries extremely hard, runs extremely far, is athletic, a good team player ... but is not a game-breaker.)

** (the other problem is that most of the "best athletes" in other sports aren't great fits for soccer. LeBron James would make a bad soccer player, but is, of course, a fantastic athlete. The guys who should be playing soccer but aren't look like Nate Robinson or Isaiah Thomas -- the Celtics guard, not the retired Pistons great -- not Demetris Robertson.)

[washingtonismoney]

"Best athletes" is a bit of a cliche by this point -- and unfortunately not useful for the U.S., who are already regarded as extremely good athletes on the world stage.* While I suppose there's additional benefit to getting even more athletic, it's probably not the most obvious place to improve. Instead, the U.S. should be focusing on improving the skill and soccer IQ of players rather than getting better run-jump-strength guys.** That is, it should be finding and building players like Steph Curry (who thrive because of skill and creativity) rather than the best decathletes ever.

Anyway the discussions are a bit inappropriate. Long-time followers of the U.S. know that the talent has never been better. I repeat this a lot but I feel I have to! It's just true. I was chatting with a friend who's also a close follower of the team, and we both were expressing wonderment that the team has, like, fifty viable left back options -- while in 2009-13 they had to scrounge around some real trash. The team looks bad because a very dim coach put together a bad roster and selected the worst possible options of an already-bad roster.

So the U.S. development system could stand to get better, but if current trends hold things will work out. Maybe very slowly, but they will.

* (the typical European coach comment about a U.S. player is that he tries extremely hard, runs extremely far, is athletic, a good team player ... but is not a game-breaker.)

** (the other problem is that most of the "best athletes" in other sports aren't great fits for soccer. LeBron James would make a bad soccer player, but is, of course, a fantastic athlete. The guys who should be playing soccer but aren't look like Nate Robinson or Isaiah Thomas -- the Celtics guard, not the retired Pistons great -- not Demetris Robertson.)