British Expatriate Network

England played 2day against the yanks, and came out ahead like we expected them to ( 2-1 ). The goals came from an unexpected source, but we hardly had our full international squad there.

World cup is round the corner, is anyone brave enough to predict what England's chances are? Football seems to be changing now all around the world, and no country should be taken for granted these days, it's only a matter of time before an African country lifts the trophy.


Only the other day, the U.A.E beat Japan in a friendly o

The gap has narrowed that's for sure. Yeah England were without an entire squad almost for this game but the Americans were missing a few too.

I didn't like the way the substitutions switched around so much in the second half. Bringing a forward on for a defender, then the reverse, then the reverse again... no wonder US scored, the England players didn't know when they were playing where.

Richardson was a surprise source that is for sure. I didn't like the way we kept giving the ball away in our own half, we did it all game. And if Donovan's free kick had gone in, the game may have been different...

So what are the sub rules? That's what really pisses me off with the kid's soccer -they play 4 periods of 12 minutes, and yet each team still subs 1-3 players every time the ball goes out of play. How can anyone enjoy a game where the players are different everytime you blink?

The kids football in the UK, is completely different from what it is in the US and Canada. Over here, it's just a joke and they only take baseball and hockey rules seriously.

I coached under 8 football ( soccer ) last summer, and the parents were going on about how they just want their kids to have fun, with no rules involved. In the uk, kids are taught the rules from an early stage.

I was pleased to see Clyde Simms get on the field at the end (for the USA) - to think just 9 months ago I was watching him suit up for the Richmond Kickers )

The UK had it all wrong until relatively recently though. We put too much emphasis on competition at a young age, expecting young kids to grind out results, rather than concentrating on "fun" and having the kids learn good practices and techniques as they had fun.

The rules are something that can be picked up gradually, as a secondary or tertiary priority. Getting young kids to have fun, feel involved/included and enjoy getting better at the game are far more important than a bunch of parents yelling because they aren't watching Premier League. :wink:

You will find very few young kid leagues here aimed at competition rather than participation. In the main, this works well -some very good little players come through who would have given up if the emphasis had been on winning from the get-go. Who cares if offside remains a mystery for a few years? They'll get it when they have the skill to manipulate it.

However, the question I asked was what are the sub(stitution) rules? Are they limited to 2 or 3 subs throughout the game, or is it free-for-all every stoppage, as it is in the kids' soccer?

3 subs are allowed in a game. You can request a substitution at any dead ball situation and it must be signalled by the assistant referee, to the referee before the changeover can occur.

So yes, limited to 3 per game.

Ta.

So E17s complaint was just about the change of the structure of the team due to them. Yes that does seem like it would interupt flow, but as I didn't see the game I really can't comment further.

I do worry that now "soccer" is becoming more popular in America, there will be more pressure for it to be played in shorter periods -with more of them and more substitution. It certainly would be soccer and not football then.

Unless your name is Sven-Göran Eriksson, in which case if the opposing coach agrees you can substitute the entire team in a friendly match. Even then, once you are off you stay off.

I noticed the local high school girl's team do the ice hockey/Am.football-style line changes when I watched our exchange student play her games. At that level at least it gives all the kids a run-out.

I agree with the runout thing -at elementary school level- by high school, I would have thouht they'd need to be fielding a regular team to get a decent game?

The best players in the world, didn't become what they are from taking the sport as a bit of fun from a younger age. Just look at the brazilians ( pele, ronaldo, rivaldo, and the new brazilian kid that is only 12 ), the same goes for the europeans, and the Africans that have become huge players in europe.

George Weah....the only players to win world player, european player, and african player of the year, in the same yeah. From what have read and know, he started younger and took it very seriously.

Most parents don't even know the rules in this part of the world, for them it's just another excuse to drive their SUVs, put on their make ups and try and outdo other mothers, whilst thinking they are all that roll

Given the more traditionalist nature of people this side of the pond, I'd suspect that -even if were the case that the majority don't know the rules-less than 50% of parents are putting on make-up before heading out in their SUVs. Or by most parents did you mean most mothers? In which case how do you imagine all the fathers to be? Do they know the rules, or are they posers too?

Fortunately, I don't find this to be true where I live. You must have had bad experiences in the places where your children play/ed soccer and have my sympathy.

Also, you might like to note that only a very small minority of people go on to be world class footballers. For the rest, it's a fun leisure opportunity and sport. Nobody is claiming that all kids' soccer programs should be or are run in a predominantly non-competative way -just the majority -to suit the needs of the majority.

My experience of children's soccer on each side of the pond...

It's much more everyday life in the UK - kids playing on the street and in the school playground, and as part of school PE lessons/games. It's competitive in the UK, except at mini-soccer levels.

In the US, it's more organised at an early age with "Rec" "programs". DH was a rec coach for 6/7 year olds and he had to undergo quite a bit of training to be able to do this (he had never played himself, so dads can be just as ignorant as mums). The emphasis was to "let the game be the coach" ie to have fun and to make up their own rules to see what worked the best (which is similar to what my brothers did when they played in the street with jumpers for goalposts. We moved quickly onto "select" soccer in the States and it was highly competitive and very well coached.

As for subbing - at youth level, it seems to be the same in the US vs the UK - you can take them on and off as much as you like.

Soccer seems to be a lot more seasonal in the US, making way for baseball and basketball. It does have to fit in with rugby and cricket in the UK, but kids still knock about in the playground during their breaks with a football year round.

I'd say that these difference at youth level are all very minor though in the grand scheme of things. The weird thing is that American kids give up soccer when they enter high school - why? It's a far superior game to the alternatives where you spend most of the time as a spectator.

I should have mentioned that you can sub your whole team off in a friendly - limited only to the number of subs allowed on the bench but like you say, they can't sub in and out - once off, they stay off.

I've seen Premier League teams play pre-season down in Devon and they subbed the whole team at half time which is not a bad idea if you are a few goals up and want to get your reserves fit/scoring.