U.S. U-17 boys routed by the Netherlands

The U.S. U-17 men's national team was out-shot 25-7 and beaten 5-1 by the Netherlands at the Nike International Friendlies. The rout marked the second loss in the first two games of the U-17s' new cycle, following a 1-0 loss to England.

Coach John Hackworth's U.S. team faces Brazil on Sunday (streamed live on U.S. Soccer’s Facebook page, YouTube channel and ussoccer.com) in its final game of the Nike Friendlies. Brazil is undefeated with wins over England (2-1) and the Netherlands (2-1).

Full game video:

The Netherlands took the lead in the third minute on an indirect free kick awarded when U.S. Kepper Kashope Oladapo handled a back pass. By halftime of the 80-minute game, the Dutch were up, 3-0, and they added two more goals before Alfonso Ocampo Chavez scored the USA's consolation goal six minutes before the final whistle.

Dec. 1 in Lakewood Ranch, Fla.
U.S. U-17s 1 Netherlands U-17s 5. Goals: Ocampo Chavez (Fuentes) 74; Ihattaren (Taabouni) 3, Ihattaren (van Ottele)  27, Taylor (Ihattaren) 32, Pinas (Kasanwirjo) 52, Brobbery (Bannis) 64.
USA -- Oladapo (Las, 41); Scally, Nielsen, Judge, Anderson (Bello, 41); Serrano, Goeggel (Stroud, 41), Atencio (Ocampo Chavez, 67); Sealy (Busio, 41), Lopez, Gaines (Fuentes, 41).
Netherlands -- Troost; van der Sloot (Bogarde, 71), Kasanwirjo, van der Zeeuw, Salah-Eddine (Maatsen, 41); van Ottele, Taabouni (Proper, 70), Taylor; van Kaam (Bannis, 57), Pinas (Hansen, 57), Ihattaren (Brobbery, 57).
Referee: Malik Badawi (USA)
Att.: 1,637

9 comments about "U.S. U-17 boys routed by the Netherlands".
  1. R2 Dad, December 2, 2017 at 5:04 p.m.

    This is not rocket science, but the USSF coaches continue to put square pegs in round holes. Our teams keep failing the same ways. Why is the scouting so ineffective, and why can't coaches choose players who are comfortable on the ball? Watch this match, and you'll notice that our back line can't manage to recycle the ball, and our outside backs can't go 1v1 and maintain possession into our attacking half. This results in long balls from our keeper and the inability to retain possession in our defensive half. No possession, no control of the ball or the game. Eventually, this new U17 team will be better but Hackworth will have to go through dozens more kids to find the right players. Couldn't they just spot the good ones straight away, instead of going through what are presumably Hackworth's buddy's players first? Again, no transparency so it's easy to just assume ineptitude. What' the story, Coach Hack?

  2. frank schoon replied, December 2, 2017 at 6:28 p.m.

    R2, there are some comments. By me, Bob, and Fan... about this game on the first game of the US 

  3. R2 Dad replied, December 3, 2017 at 1:20 a.m.

    I've read them--sounds like we are all steamed by the same things. And my frustration is that the media continues to post interesting articles from old guys who keep saying, "steady as she goes", "we're doing well", and more of the same. But if that's the thinking while watching these matches, I have a very different understanding of what is acceptable. Sunil is going to pop up at the last minute, win the election and we're in for more of the same with our U teams and professional soccer at the national level.

  4. Right Winger replied, December 3, 2017 at 5:03 p.m.

    Not a whole lot more to be said.  It's evident the system is out of wack.  It's too obvious to be missed but the fact that it is ignored really questions the credibility of the whole organization.  Too many good kids with talent have been left behind on these younger national teams.  Really a disgrace. When you put 22 of your best players in the country on the field starters or bench they should be competitive with the competition.  Win or lose is not the question.  

  5. Bob Ashpole, December 4, 2017 at 2:29 p.m.

    My biggest worry is: What if identification is not the problem? What if we are selecting the best skilled players?

    In my view we want the type of player pool that will be competitive regardless of which 11 we put on the field. Depth. None of you are saying that the problem is a lack of a "star" player. Instead the problems you see in the players suggest a systemic problem with player development--not a lack player selection.

    If a jar is full of green marbles, every time we take a marble out of the jar it will be green.

    I am afraid that as a collective, youth coaches are patting themselves on the back for developing players with "some" skills. "Some" is not enough. Too much emphasis on tactics too early. Throughout the process to U23 we should be emphasizing skill development and individual tactics. Instead of looking at player development in terms of teams and team tactics, we need to look at player development as progress in the effectiveness of individual 1v1 matchups on the field.

    Not sure if I said it right. Some of your comments reflect this--they talk about the effectiveness of players on the field. I give more importance to those than the comments about failing to possess the ball and controll the game, which are team criticisms. No team is going to controll a game if the players are not effective in their 1v1 matchups. 

  6. frank schoon replied, December 4, 2017 at 5:25 p.m.

    Bob, yes, too much emphasis on team tactics too early and not individual development. Individual development must come first ,for two reasons. One, it is harder to develop individual skill, it takes longer, two, like Cruyff says ,tactics should be taught when the youth is about 14 years old for it stands a better chance to be grasp without going into one ear and out the other. Tactics is better suited to players when he is more mature. Kids will begin to learn tactics,anyway in the beginning stages just by playing with the older kids, like I did . In other words through playing you will begin to experience situations repeating themselves just by playing. Look at the Brazilian kids , for example, they play the same basic formation, and programmed style of soccer as the other 3 teams but they also set themselves apart via their technical diversity which we don't have. All we have in common is the similar boring ,programmed style of play, which is obvious easier to teach then developing technique for that takes time. One of the reasons that tactics is introduced too early is more of a reflection upon the lack of good a technical coaches . Most coaches tend not to be good technicians of the game and interestingly enough  too many  were defenders which is another problem. That is why I want coaches in the early development of the youth up to the age of 14 to have been creative attackers not defenders who tend view the collective rather than individual. Also,  the less skilled the coach the more he will emphasize the collective not the individual, resulting in a lot young players get a good dose of team concepts rather than invidividual concepts. You're right without a good foundation of technique and strong in 1v1 matchups a team can't win...

  7. R2 Dad replied, December 4, 2017 at 7:51 p.m.

    Bob I don't think that's actually happening. I think what going on is that the skilled ball-handlers aren't the biggest/stoutest of kids and coaches bypass them because coaches feel bad about themselves when they see their own players getting beaten for speed. That looks "wrong" to them so they don't select those kids. Again, I may be wrong but I've yet to hear a U coach with a microphone discuss these issues in public. The ball-handlers and quick players are useful in the attacking 3rd--as long as you stuff the back line and midfield with "bodies". This is exactly the scenario that Billie Bean addressed in Moneyball. Turns out the "bodies" had poor metrics if you measured them. Unfortunately, soccer doesn't lend itself to such measurement though that doesn't stop propeller-heads from trying.

  8. Bob Ashpole replied, December 6, 2017 at 4:33 p.m.

    R2 Dad, 20 years ago I saw that happening at U10 and above. I don't know if it still happens today. Coaching has improved in a general sense although this is a specific problem, not a general one. It stopped at about U16 because most of the kids have caught up to the early bloomers. So the early bloomers, at least the ones who only played in the back, were dumped because their "skills" were not good enough.

    If you look at the senior MNT team, both CBs are good on the ball. There is no longer roster space for a good tackler unless he is also good on the ball. There will always be some bad examples, just as there always was some clubs using best practices. Progress of the system has to be judged on a macro view.

    That macro view doesn't help individuals. Most complaints regarding the system come from anecdotes about individuals. I don't think there was any kid in the world wanting to play soccer more than I did. My own experience was that there was no organized youth soccer at all when I was a kid. Not even bad coaching and very little pickup play. I was 35 before I had an opportunity to try out for an organized team, a long time to dream. (I was 7 years older than the coach!) That experience certainly colors my perspective today when people complain about coaching. From a players perspective: "Any soccer is good soccer."  

  9. Right Winger, December 4, 2017 at 9:31 p.m.

    R2 you are right.  That is exactly what has happened particularly at this age group.  The youngsters that had technical ability were bypassed.  Not necessarily because of speed but because of size they were never given a chance to perform under pressure and had to yield because the coaches were more intent on winning rather than giving those players the same chance they gave for lack of a better word the bigger players.  Too much emphasis on winning rather than let things play out and let the kids show themselves under pressure.  I would much rather have a team of ball handlers who are not afraid to make mistakes and be creative and make me Hingis happen.

    Several years ago I took an u16 team to Scotland to participate in a tourney.  We played an u14 team from Inverness who were very small and gave no impression of being athletic.  They had such quick accurate ball movement that it was blinding and even though they walked us it was fun to watch.  Such tremendous movement off the ball combined with accurate passes it was something to see.  Players who were not afraid to go 1v1 or two when necessary.  We don't have that and until we do we will continue to tread water.

Next story loading loading..

Discover Our Publications