RyanM
Newbie
- Joined
- May 3, 2016
- Messages
- 1
I know for a fact it's possible.
Back when the 1999 USWNT was in residency camp at Bradenton (this would have been 1998 or early 1999), they would regularly scrimmage the US Boys U-17 team (b/c they were both in camp and you get tired of always playing against your teammates). Now keep in mind, girls mature physically faster than boys (and with U-17 boys, we're probably talking 15 year olds b/c they need to be U-17 when the U-17 WC happens). So the US women were not only older, they were heavier, stronger and mostly faster (and taller in a few cases). More over, many of them (like Hamm and Foudy) had been playing together since 1990--they had nearly a decade of experience together. Meanwhile, the boys had in some cases been together only a couple of months. The U-17 boys won the majority of those scrimmages. And yes, both sides took them seriously.
Look, women's soccer is barely out of its' infancy. You can train full-time but if you don't have competitive opponents playing in a professional league at a high level, you're not going to be as good. The US women are great female players. But they continue to get better ever year b/c women's soccer gets more competitive each year. But it's still not even close to men's soccer (and no, not b/c men are taller, stronger, faster--those matter at the highest levels but soccer is still mostly about technical ability and smarts--game intelligence). The U-17 boys would win the majority of the time b/c they were better players than the 1999 WWC winners. How were they better players? They moved off the ball (even the 2015 US women tended to stand around). They were better technically (ball skills). They were better at one-touch soccer and controlling the ball quicker. They were better at a short passing game (the US women have traditionally played a very direct, long-ball, simplistic soccer that isn't very sophisticated...which is why for the past decade the US women don't score a lot of goals in the run of play...3 of their goals in this WC final against Japan came on restarts...designed plays). The U-17 team would do less ball watching and would track runners when on defense. They would make it hard to play against them (pushing players off the ball so long passes would go astray as runners were off-stride, clutching and grabbing on restarts).
Now, the U-17 boy's team is better than a good HS team...it's the best under 17 talent in the US we can get. But a HS team won't be U-17, it's really U-19 (b/c you'll have a lot of guys who are 18 and 19 years old). The US women have gotten better. But HS and college guys have gotten better as well. So while I think the gap isn't as big now as it was in 1999, it's still a huge gigantic gap. So, I can tell you that yes, a good (not great, but good) HS team that played in a strong soccer area (like Dallas or California or NY or NJ or St. Louis) or a good travel/select team of U-18 boys would have a very good chance of beating the US women. No shame in that, women's soccer has improved a lot in the past 15 years but it still has a long ways to go. The lack of high level, competitively sharp professional clubs combined with a lot of nations don't take women's soccer seriously (you can count on 1 hand the number of nations that really support their women's programs) mean that you can practice all you want but that absence of good competition makes improvement slow. So if the US women were in a residency camp at Bradenton or somewhere else with the US Boys U-17 team and they scrimmaged regularly, the boys would still win most of those matches. But not as many as the past b/c the technical and tactical savvy of the women has improved a lot since 1999. But I believe the boys would still win the majority of them.
Actually, it is not difficult to find out the strength of teams and leagues. To have a better understanding of the overall information of the teams and players, I use several mobile apps to get stats.
Back when the 1999 USWNT was in residency camp at Bradenton (this would have been 1998 or early 1999), they would regularly scrimmage the US Boys U-17 team (b/c they were both in camp and you get tired of always playing against your teammates). Now keep in mind, girls mature physically faster than boys (and with U-17 boys, we're probably talking 15 year olds b/c they need to be U-17 when the U-17 WC happens). So the US women were not only older, they were heavier, stronger and mostly faster (and taller in a few cases). More over, many of them (like Hamm and Foudy) had been playing together since 1990--they had nearly a decade of experience together. Meanwhile, the boys had in some cases been together only a couple of months. The U-17 boys won the majority of those scrimmages. And yes, both sides took them seriously.
Look, women's soccer is barely out of its' infancy. You can train full-time but if you don't have competitive opponents playing in a professional league at a high level, you're not going to be as good. The US women are great female players. But they continue to get better ever year b/c women's soccer gets more competitive each year. But it's still not even close to men's soccer (and no, not b/c men are taller, stronger, faster--those matter at the highest levels but soccer is still mostly about technical ability and smarts--game intelligence). The U-17 boys would win the majority of the time b/c they were better players than the 1999 WWC winners. How were they better players? They moved off the ball (even the 2015 US women tended to stand around). They were better technically (ball skills). They were better at one-touch soccer and controlling the ball quicker. They were better at a short passing game (the US women have traditionally played a very direct, long-ball, simplistic soccer that isn't very sophisticated...which is why for the past decade the US women don't score a lot of goals in the run of play...3 of their goals in this WC final against Japan came on restarts...designed plays). The U-17 team would do less ball watching and would track runners when on defense. They would make it hard to play against them (pushing players off the ball so long passes would go astray as runners were off-stride, clutching and grabbing on restarts).
Now, the U-17 boy's team is better than a good HS team...it's the best under 17 talent in the US we can get. But a HS team won't be U-17, it's really U-19 (b/c you'll have a lot of guys who are 18 and 19 years old). The US women have gotten better. But HS and college guys have gotten better as well. So while I think the gap isn't as big now as it was in 1999, it's still a huge gigantic gap. So, I can tell you that yes, a good (not great, but good) HS team that played in a strong soccer area (like Dallas or California or NY or NJ or St. Louis) or a good travel/select team of U-18 boys would have a very good chance of beating the US women. No shame in that, women's soccer has improved a lot in the past 15 years but it still has a long ways to go. The lack of high level, competitively sharp professional clubs combined with a lot of nations don't take women's soccer seriously (you can count on 1 hand the number of nations that really support their women's programs) mean that you can practice all you want but that absence of good competition makes improvement slow. So if the US women were in a residency camp at Bradenton or somewhere else with the US Boys U-17 team and they scrimmaged regularly, the boys would still win most of those matches. But not as many as the past b/c the technical and tactical savvy of the women has improved a lot since 1999. But I believe the boys would still win the majority of them.
Actually, it is not difficult to find out the strength of teams and leagues. To have a better understanding of the overall information of the teams and players, I use several mobile apps to get stats.
Last edited by a moderator:
