Critics of soccer in the U.S. say the system lets good talent fall through the cracks. The standard response is to ask where are all these people that fell through cracks?

Well, they never even made their HS soccer team and likely left soccer to do other things because they didn’t receive an ounce of positive feedback from coaches.

3Four3’s Gary Kleiben on Twitter poked fun at how Busquets doesn’t fit the American player model. He said, by our standards, he’s slow, small and weak.

Busquets is a good example of type of player high school coaches ignore.

American soccer coaches and fans value two types of players.

One type is the big, fast, athletic hustler that can win 50/50s and knock people off the ball. These players are thought of like we think of football players, where we tend to look for the right type of athleticism and size first, then we can teach them what they need to know to be serviceable at a specific position. For example, football converts 50 yard track sprinting specialists into wide receivers by teaching them how to catch the ball.

The other type is the uber talented goal scorer, like Messi.

From top-to-bottom in the U.S,, the team archetype is to have 7-8 of the first type of players, occupying defender and midfielder positions and 2-3 of the second type up front. This is basically the make up of a team that will dominate the local rec league, high school varsity teams, MLS teams and the US national teams.

Messi himself requested Busquets in Miami, so he obviously values what he brings.

So what does he bring?

I’m not a fan of this cliche analogy, but Busquets plays chess, while Americans think the game is checkers.

He brings high-level ball control and decision-making that result in fewer turnovers and more high quality scoring chances.

Americans view soccer as a game that is mostly a physical battle to win the ball, i.e. checkers. That’s why they value the first type of player, because they are always winning the ball so it looks like they are doing something good.

But, Americans also don’t notice that these players are usually re-winning the ball they just turned over from a bad pass or mis-touch.

On the other hand, when you have more players like Busquets on the field, you don’t have as much need to dramatically and physically win the ball back, because turnovers go way down and more touches translate into high quality scoring opportunities for the team.

A sure sign that Americans don’t see this is that we rarely even talk about turnover ratios in soccer like we do in football and basketball.

And, when the ball is turned over with more players like Busquets on the field, winning it back isn’t as physical and Americans don’t even see what’s going on.

When Busquets dispossesses a player, it doesn’t look like he did much because he didn’t destroy the attacker. He picked his pocket.

Instead of recognizing that as extremely high skill level, we discount it as weak.

Or, instead of going for the tackle, he and his teammates work together to pressure the other team into predictable and progressively lower percentage passes until they make a mistake and turn it over, while never giving the other team a random chance of gaining an advantage.

Contrast this with the hard-charging ‘destroyer’ (as named by 3Four3) ball tackler.

What percentage of his challenges have an unpredictable outcome? Even a small percentage can impact the game unfavorably for you team, which is not acknowledged.

As a player, I play with folks who think they need to challenge every ball. They remember the challenges they won and are oblivious to how it impacts the team.

Going in for a challenge creates an unpredictable outcome. Will he win the ball? Will he knock it loose? Will he accidentally knock it to a more advantageous position for the other team?

As a teammate, I’m trying to adjust to what will happen next. Do I stay in a more defensive stance because he might put the other team in a better position? Or, should I start to support on offense? This can mean multiple 5-10 yard sprints back and forth that can wear a team out and improve the chances for the other team.

Further, when these players lose a challenge they assume no blame for what comes next. It’s as if the only acceptable action is to try to win the ball and if they lose it, well, at least they tried.

It it turns into a goal for the other team, they don’t connect the dots to realize there are a variety of actions that can be made than challenging for the ball. No. They likely just think, “I need to get better at challenging for the ball.”