Attractive Soccer - What is it? or England is an island

You see these words thrown around alot today, but what is it? Different things to different people, most would agree though that attractive soccer revolves around possession and creative play. To me personally it can be summed up simply by "playing to win", not, "playing not to lose." My personal version involves building from the back, possession, and a simple philosophy of everyone attacking when we have the ball, and everyone defending when we don't.

The question often asked is why can't the USMNT play this way. There is no short answer other than, slowly we are. Here is my attempt at the long answer:

You'll often see the argument that the American youth system stifles creativity, that the Americans rely on athleticism too much, they over coach and don't let kids play. Well the reality is that the crux of the problem, stems from a lack of coaching at the younger ages. You see to be creative requires great technical ability,you can't be one with the ball when all you are taught is to chase it and kick it with your toe by a well meaning parent/coach. This is slowly being addressed as clubs get bigger and better funded. It is after all a business and economics drive the youth system. Initially after the parent/coaches got the kids to the age where the clubs could charge for coaching, the coach had alot of players who were technically deficient hence the need to rely on size and speed. This was compounded by the influx of UK coaches. Parents unfamiliar with the game felt an English accent meant a high soccer IQ. This wouldn't have been particularly catastrophic until you look at the style of play in England. Last Spring, in an ESPN article, former World Cup winner Jorge Valdano blasted Jose Mourinho(Chelsea) and Rafael Benitez(Liverpool) for the style of soccer they perpetuate.

'Chelsea and Liverpool are the clearest, most exaggerated example of the way football is going: very intense, very collective, very tactical, very physical, and very direct.

'But, a short pass? No. A feint? No. A change of pace? No. A one-two? A nutmeg? A backheel? Don't be ridiculous. None of that. The extreme control and seriousness with which both teams played the semi-final neutralised any creative licence, any moments of exquisite skill.'

So let's recap. You've got parents unfamiliar with the game who could (at the time) really only watch the EPL on TV, hiring English coaches to coach technically deficient players. Garbage in garbage out.

Okay today that picture is changing drastically. From an economic standpoint Clubs became bigger and more lucrative and as the fight for the biggest and the fastest kids waged, someone came to the realization that if I can't win that battle I can produce the most technically gifted team. This is starting an entirely new look at the youth system level. (Just look at England's World Cup history to see who wins the physical, direct style versus the technical, possession style.) Combine this with the ability of satellite and internet to watch any league in the World and the influx of Latinos to America and literally, it's a whole new ball game.

Before too much longer The United Kingdom will be an island (pun intended) of 'direct football' This year I would much rather watch a Bundesliga game than an EPL game, much more 'attractive soccer'. If you saw any of the 2006 World Cup you know that this translated to the German National Team, so much so that the Argentinian press welcomed Germany to the 'game of soccer'. In the United States the MLS is playing 'attractive soccer', with the exception of New England, oh that's right an English coach. Jorge Valdano had his own theory on coaching styles. He said:

'...neither Mourinho nor Benitez made it as a player. That has made them channel all their vanity into coaching.

'Those who did not have the talent to make it as players do not believe in the talent of players, they do not believe in the ability to improvise in order to win football matches. In short, Benitez and Mourinho are exactly the kind of coaches that Benitez and Mourinho would have needed to have made it as players.'

That must be the difference in Steve Nichol and Steve Morrow.