The Road from Here

Maybe, I'm just not convinced that we can hire people who are good, cheap and obvious. The obvious part matters. MLS has hired a number of foreign coaches and they haven't been that special. These were probably the wrong people to hire, but who knew it at the time? I've worked for a variety of organizations in my time and the ones that didn't know what they were doing hired badly. Some of the time it was that they just didn't have the money to go out an hire someone obviously good, other times it was because they didn't know what they didn't know.

People who are obviously good, people with a proven track record, are going to be too expensive for MLS because the value of their services is going to be so much greater in a country that values soccer more. MLS needs to go after the diamonds in the rough, the underappreciated, and I have no confidence in our ability to do that.

That said, I also don't think we're trying that hard. Whatever you think about Bruce Arena (and personally I think he has maxed out his talent) his career was being successful at one level and then promoted to a higher level. That's what you want. However, the people he hires have not tended to have a record of success, they tend to be people he knows. That's what worries me.

 

Yeah, although I think the Galaxy's strategy is to just throw money at the problem. But still, it's a whole lot better than the teams that don't throw money at the problem.

Chivas had an excellent group of players but when they were going through their problems LA hired their youth coach Mike Munoz who brought their most talented players with him. See, there is player mobility!

 

One last post. I think what happens with Jose Villarreal could really change how things develop. He's on loan from the Galaxy to Cruz Azul with an option to buy. Even a relatively small transfer fee, say 300-400k, would change how both the Galaxy and potential players would see the progran.

 

OK, one more post What I wonder about is when the US players start to fall behind. Like I said the LA Galaxy academy team looked even with Chivas Guad in both style and ability (recognizing it was just one game) and yet I have a sense that the average Mexican player has advanced beyond the average American player by age 24. Maybe these players will stay even, but I wonder. This is why i've been watching the USL team so closely. Is this where MLS should spend money to continue the development of the players?

 

But that's just it. MLS - unlike, say, NCAA sports - is a very short pyramid that consists of ex-college coaches (Schmid, Arena, Porter, plus exes like Hyndman, Sampson, et al) and retired MLS/US players without any international coaching experience (Berhalter's Swedish second division failure being a sole exception). In Europe, with its solid multi-tier system, an ex-player can occasionally be given an (interim) top tier job a la Gary Monk at Swansea without prior run of success but his hold on that job is tenuous. Many an ex-star like Paul Ince, Roy Keane or Tony Adams proved to be dismal failures as coaches and thereby disappeared off the head coaching searches, only to be replaced by those more successful on lower levels. With MLS head coaching tenures being rather long visavis the rest of the world - no pro/rel is a major factor here - the coaching turnover is limited and mediocrity reigns.

And, by the way, there are quite a few available international coaches with good resumes. Hans Baacke didn't really have one. Marco Schallibaum didn't have one. Juan Carlos Osorio's didn't have one (or, at best, didn't have one outside of Colombia). Carlos de los Cobos didn't have one. El Chelis had an OK resume with perennial strugglers but ... eh. Besides, as more players become available, a foreign coach should also find himself in more familiar surroundings.

PS. I don't see Klopas doing better than Schallibaum or Petke any better than Baacke. As to Arena, with the money splurged on the Galaxy players, a smart organization would hire a really big name coach as well. NASL brought in Hennes Weisweiler and Rinus Michels (and, of course, young Harry Redknapp, Guus Hiddink and Dick Advocaat ... although only as players). Arena is average even by MLS puny standards. His CONCACAF excursions tell enough. Sigi Schmid is in the same (large) boat. Seattle's talent is wasted on him.

 

Like players moving abroad to truly learn the game, and I think that's a fair statement as tactically our players who stay in MLS are generally pretty far behind their counterparts abroad and is one of the reasons for struggling abroad(Shea is a good example of this-tactically naive), I would like to see more young coaches going abroad as interns or as assistants and really getting schooled on the game by managers and clubs with a proven track record and history of playing the right way, then come back and start instilling what they've learned.

What Kries is doing is largely a step in the right direction. A 6 month, intensive stint in Manchester where he's in daily coaching meetings, works with the youth teams who practice the same system as the senior team, sees up close how one of the top managers in the world goes about his business and frankly, will learn more than he would by just staying stateside.

I'm not all that impressed with Sigi or Arena. Both are outclassed when facing international(Liga MX) clubs tactically in CCL. They don't maximize their talent either. Arena trading Magee for Rogers and making Omar a DP set that team back for years. The guy who probably comes closest to maximizing his talent while also playing a positive tactical style is Porter. Kinnear maximizes his talent in Hou but he's terrible at finding quality talent to fit his 4-3-3 system and is more akin to the MLS version of Tony Pulis. Bunker, make it ugly and rely on set pieces. And Arena/Sigi/Kinnear are considered some of the best coaches to ever grace this league, yet they all get out-classed in CCL and in general, outside of a handful of Keane/Landon combinations, the link up play and movement from LAG/Hou is poor.

Too many IMO look at success at the MLS level as validation of quality coaching. You can win at this level by bunkering and playing some ugly footy but I concentrate more on the tactics, the movement, the ideas of the players, how they use/create space, etc, and we're behind and that goes for Arena/Sigi/Kinnear and the majority of coaches in this league. Here's a quote from Yedlin after scrimmaging Sao Paolo's reserves:

The soccer was very good. We were not the most fit group at the beginning and it showed against players who are very good technically. I was really impressed with how good São Paolo was, not only with the ball, but their movement. They all really have a great idea how to play together in both the attack and when they’re defending. It was a lot different game than what a lot of us are used to, but I think it will help us to have seen it.

That quote speaks volumes, coming from our current top stateside prospect, MLS All Star and a guy who's played under Sigi, considered one of our top coaches. Sao Paolo isn't doing anything you won't see in many leagues around the world. That Yedlin describes it as basically being a different game, the movement and ideas, says a lot. Imagine how different it'd be for him if he was with any number of other MLS coaches as Sigi, although he has his issues, is one of the better tacticians in the league. But, I'm glad Yedlin at least got a chance to see how it's done elsewhere. And he, like others, will hit a wall here as tactically the league currently has a low ceiling. It will eventually improve, but not in the time frame a guy like Yedlin needs to continue developing before hitting his prime. And that's the catch-22 we face here, we need to keep young talent but we can't at the same time hold back young talent as MLS waits to improve the coaching and style/tactical issues. It's not a coincidence our best tactical players at the full NT level are guys who experienced Europe, yes, even Landon as a young guy in Germany, as well as our foreign developed players who see the game differently.

 

I was writing with regard to the real world, not a fantasy one where Graham Zusi is valued at 500.000 € and Jose Torres is valued at 2.200.000 €. The site obviously needs to be taken with a large grain of salt but at least players on the same team have a bit more reality than trying to use the site to compare leagues.

 

Clearly we have a coaching problem - but it starts at much, much younger ages and it goes way beyond coaching. If you go back in time before the game became more developed in Europe you could quoted basketball pro saying the same thing in describing a what it was like to play a pick-up game in some inner city US play ground. It is next to impossible for any coach to try to teach adult players how to visualize the game, when players haven't developed that vision in their formative years.

Expert performance is based on chunking increasing more complexly coded information. This takes ability takes a long time build up the networks in the brain. If you get players with very simplistic mental models of play, no one is going to be enable the player to play at a much more sophisticated level without years of intensive training. The reality is that many of our players never really watched games. In contrast, foreign kids are immersed in the game from the time they open their eyes. A couple years at U16 in an academy is not going to fix this.

 

I agree with that. That's a whole other issue. Things like this will help though.

http://www.fcbarcelona.com/football...icle/the-fcbescola-lands-in-the-united-states

Soccer in the United States has been growing exponentially in the last few years, the FCBEscola Florida is looking to introduce the values and philosophy in the United States which has a very bright future in the sport. Following the methodology and working style being led from Barcelona, the program taking place will be directed and supervised by a Technical Director from the FCBEscola in Barcelona that will reside permanently in Florida. The project that FCBEscola is striving for is to bring Futbol Club Barcelona to all the children in the world

That's one way to get a technical director here to develop kids who knows what he's doing and has been schooled by the best.

Starting young, focusing on the 6-13 yr olds is what's needed. Since it will be awhile until we have the money to start youth academies like this for this age group with quality coaching, since no one is stepping forward, I have no problem learning from and benefiting from foreign clubs doing it here. Someone has to. If others are prepared and willing to do it first, good. Just like Alianza is finding a way to work around the pay to play structure and is doing so with thousands of kids. If other entities are willing to step up and and improve in areas we currently aren't ready to provide solutions, I suggest working with them and learning from them.

 

How about MLS teams offering scholarships to Universities close by?

The kids get an education; get to train with the MLS team and access to MLS coaches (and college coaches).

I guess the problem is that because of NCAA rules MLS can not sign the kids to contracts, so they could finish college and take all that training overseas.

Maybe Lower Division College? But that would mean playing against lower quality.

Edit: To expand on this, as an example, MLS rules (would also need PU approval) could allow the Fire to sign players like Pineda to a equivalent of tuition to Chicago State University + books and room allowances (maybe set a Max cap).

Now Pineda may not be able to play with the University team because of NCAA rules, but he can still train with the Fire and play with the Reserves (even first team if he is counted as one of the 30 roster spots) team while going to University full time.

Maybe the rule could be that 17-18 year olds out of high school can get a choice from MLS teams, a 3-4 year minimum salary offer or a 4 year guaranteed contract for Tuition and extras equivalent (may be worth more than the min salary).

There can also be an option that if the kid is not interested in college or flunking out/not going to classes, the contract can be converted to a regular player contract.

 

AIUI a number of the homegrown contracts include funding for college after a player's career. Similar to what GA offers (I believe GA contracts include funding for the players to finish their degree since they're leaving school early).

 

@jond, @triplet1 @ceezmad @Baysider

Kids in the US have fallen behind early. That's true enough. The main problem was "winning soccer" which is intensified by a pay to play system. "Winning soccer" is when an academy tries to show it is the best by winning everything in sight and therefore gain more clients due to it's record. The problem is that at a young level a winning team can be easily achieved by putting together the tallest, fastest kids doing intense physical conditioning and some rudimentary tactics that work well when you have a physical advantage.

1) Kids are not given the crucial ball control practice hours they need at a young age. Instead hours are spent in physical conditioning.
2) Physical conditioning in small children will wear down their bodies way before time. Many players are lost because of this.
3) Not all elite physical specimens show it at a young age. We may be selecting the wrong players.
4) The elite players are not challenged. A winning team will not give up an elite player.
5) The best players are not placed in a situation where they are forced to grow technique
6) Players are not encouraged to express themselves. Winning is the most important thing. So creativity is stifled because it doesn't work.

I believe that this problem was actually intensified by the burgeoning popularity of soccer. As tournaments increased the pressure to win instead of develop overtook the programs and everything became short sighted. Players developed before had more innate creativity. Right now the current generation of MLS players in their prime are showing a certain lack of creativity. A feeling that they have been stifled. Mathis, Reyna, Dempsey and Donovan all had/have a certain creativity that we don't see in Zusi, Bedoya and Kljestan.

The preferable way is what we have known in South America since the 20's it was our secret for a long time until Ajax caught on and introduced it to Europe. Basically, ball skill needs to be taught from a very early age and it is the only thing that is truly important.

1) At a young age. The most important thing is time on the ball developing and trying out skills.
2) If a player seems advanced for his age he needs to play with the older kids. Playing with the older kids may or may not mean a better player but the point is that kids always need to be challenged.
3) Winning at a young age means very little. Rather, talented players should be identified by what they are attempting to do. Are they attempting an advanced pass, run or technique?
4) Players are allowed to try difficult techniques even if they don't contribute or hamper a win. Indeed, players should be praised for trying stuff.
4) Keep it fun. Always keep it fun and happy. Try to never lose a kid. You never know if a kid will grow into something great.
5) A corollary of 4. Start with a lot of kids.

To it's credit, the USSF has figured this out but it's hard to say yet if the youth level coaches truly get it. I've seen changes but it's far from perfect.

 

I like metrics too, and half seems like a reasonable number, although it's going to take a while to make it a fair test. What people seem to be calling for is:

Ages 12-14 Focus on skills – all groups, not just the academies
Ages 15-18 Residential Academies
Ages 18-22 USL teams that pay well and face quality competition

We're not even close to this. RSL has the only residential academy. The Galaxy have the only USL team. I don't even want to speculate on the local academies. Like everything it seems, we're a long, long ways.

I'm a baby steps kind of guy so in terms of rules, I would let the academies take a maximum of two players (total) from other teams' territories. If it turns out there are not very many residential academies being set up, then it could be increased. There's so much potential talent in this country that I'm not too worried about missing some of it. LA's population is greater than Sweden's, so we just need to take advantage of what we have.

 

Part of the problem is that anything you do is an expensive can of worms.

http://howsyourtouch.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/teachers-leave-them-kids-alone/

I don't know how true this is, but according to the article, in some places the teams sign players under 18 to some kind of contract to give them some rights. Of course, this would mean losing college eligibility. That means you would need to guarantee everyone's college tuition and that's too expensive. OK, so you only do it for the very elite who are clearly have the potential. But those players also know they're good and why would they want to give up their freedom so that the teams could make money. It's a problem. The Galaxy have a 16(?) year old at Bradenton (Haji Wright) who looks really good. How would we sign him and why should he want to sign?

 

I don't really disagree with you and I am jumping around a bit here, was first talking about coaching but then commented on scoachd1 bringing up the technical issue at a young age, which is also an issue. Coaching and improving what we have at the U16/U18 levels is important, the coaching in MLS academies and USL-Pro level, and you appear to be arguing that is what MLS should concentrate on first, fixing the development hole for late teens and college age kids. However, I'm not so sure that's the most important step we should take when considering longer term benefits and maximizing our player pool going forward.

To a certain extent, a coach at the MLS level can only work with what he has access to. You can't really improve tech ability that much by the time guys are signing at 18/19 or worse, coming out of college at 21/22. At that point, you've got to tailor your system to the talent/skill on hand. It's really touch/IQ which will ultimately define what system can be employed and how successful that system will be. We talk about tactical acumen being and issue with both players and coaches at the MLS level, but the other side of this is until you have 11 guys out there comfortable with the ball and who can make quick touches and quick decisions and attack 1v1, any system/tactical formation employed will be limited.

A few applicable interviews/statements:

SOCCER AMERICA: Is youth coaching something you see yourself pursuing when you retire from playing?

BRAD FRIEDEL: I’m doing my UEFA A license now to get into senior management, head coaching, technical director … that’s where my ambitions lie.

However, while I’ve been playing I’ve taken a huge interest in the betterment of youth development.

We have far too big a population here in the United States not to be producing more talent.

Yes, we are light years ahead of where we were when I was a youth player. A lot of good things have happened, but I still think there needs to be a lot more focus on coaching at the grassroots level. All the way down to the 9s.

Too many people are focused the 16s, the 18s. And by that time we’re still behind when you look at the quality around the world. I’m not saying we don’t produce any good players -- but we should have a conveyor belt of talent. With the athletes we have here, the likes of Jurgen Klinsmann should have more players to choose from.

What is it that needs to be improved at the grassroots?

BRAD FRIEDEL: It’s the technique, the technique, the technique, the technique …

I’ve been to so many states here and all the parents are so concerned about is winning, winning, winning.

Winning is irrelevant when you’re 11 or 12 years old. It really is it.

If you do win by playing the right way and you implement what you do in practice, that’s great, it’s a good team thing.

But I don’t take much notice at certain age groups and certain tournaments with wins and losses. At youth tournaments, I look at the technical ability of the players. Whether the team wins or loses -- I don’t care.

http://www.socceramerica.com/article/52331/brad-friedel-we-should-have-a-conveyor-belt-of-t.html

Tom Byer:

But what I find most amusing is that if you don’t get any of the above correct, but still manage to develop technically gifted players from a very young age, anything is possible in football. Brazil recently won the Confederations Cup by beating Spain 3-0. Barcelona and Spanish football have been dissected and placed under a microscope for analysis by everyone. But when you have a team such as Brazil, which is always technically solid, and marry that with strength and speed, they’re hard to beat, especially at home.

No one has the exact solution for developing great players and teams. But there is one thing for sure: without technically superior players it doesn’t matter what system, tactic or formation you play; they will always be dependent upon the individual qualities and characteristics of the players available.

http://news.yahoo.com/football-coaching-programs-created-based-local-needs-032500169.html

I can post more from Byer, but his belief and it's shared by others as well is that the foundation for any NT or domestic league and for any re-vamped system is technical ability at a young age. That's the basis of the game. Throwing money at coaches at the top of the pyramid and the U20's/U18's/U16's is more a backwards strategy. Coaches at those levels are handicapped and dependent for the most part by the skill levels of the players they get. It's a fair question to ask where should MLS/USSF direct its money first but to receive the most bang for its buck, it's probably the longer and more patient route at the grassroots level which takes years and until then we're putting off investment in the grassroots level. We're building from the top down, but to truly impact and take full advantage of the player pool we have access to, building from the bottom up likely would pay more dividends.

Something Byer has argued is the most important aspect of development is closing the gap between the worst and the best and that here in the US, the gap is huge and we're ignoring that issue by thinking youth development is more an obligation than an opportunity. Closing the gap creates much more competition with a player pool while also greatly widening a player pool. A key to success isn't so much hoping a handful of top players buck the odds and break through, which guys like Landon or Clint have done previously but rather concentrating much more of raising the level of the bottom end. And unlike other more individual sports, in soccer you're heavily reliant on the guys playing next to you. If they're sound technically, that will improve you just as if you're sound technically, you'll improve them. When the gap is huge, it stunts growth and there's a wide mixture of skill within a pool, within an age group and within a team. It negatively effects the tempo you can play at, the options you have, the speed at which you think and see the game and trickles down to all aspects of the game as the foundation of the game truly is, how well can you manipulate the ball.

And take the foreign players out of MLS, take the foreign developed players out of our NT pool and take the foreign influenced players out of both, guys like Holden/Agudelo/Najar/Fagundez/Nagbe/etc, and I don't think we've seen much improvement in technical ability. Sure guys are playing more at an earlier age but it's still so late in the game that your skill on the ball basically is what it is.

I'll add more later but it is an interesting conversation. What's best to improve the level of MLS as quickly as possible? IMO, importing more foreign talent. But what's best to produce the backbone of a domestic league needing the backbone to be American players? Likely turning the focus to young kids and investing at the grassroots level.

 

By the way, I know this may be deemed by some as "one of" event but Leon-Bolivar home&away series proved that one does need to have a large payroll to be competitive. From looking at its roster, Leon (ex and current Mexican internationals like Miguel Sabah, Rafa Marquez, ex-Wigan Mauro Boselli, et al.) has invested heavily into its roster. Bolivar, whose finances are not known to me, is in the country of 10M people with an average nominal GDP of $2,500 per capita. In that respect, I doubt that it has many, if any, players making over $200K or so.

 

Much higher than you would expect. 2.5 million is a number that has been mentioned a lot. Team budgets in Bolivia have grown a lot in the last ten years probably because of TV money. A typical Bolivian salary is 3k or 4k a year. So when even the beginning salary of a pro player is double the average there is a lot of interest generated. In my generation I think the majority of talented players never tried to become pros. This generation will be different. So yes, MLS salaries probably need to double eventually. I don't think MLS is doing too bad a job in that respect though.

I think though that it is hand in hand. We can't just say increase the salary and then develop. Both have to be worked together.

 

MLS, for its sake, luckily has international employment laws which would force much of the improved talent, assuming a boost in development and rise in technical/tactical ability, to stay here playing domestically in comparison to a country like Belgium with the EU freedom of movement laws.

Our Mexican Americans can go to Liga MX. Our NTers can get WP's in England, although restrictions have been tightened as we saw with Agudelo getting his WP rejected after a guy like Robbie Rogers got his a few years earlier. Serie A or La Liga, they have non-EU player limits which cuts done severely on opportunities for our players in those league. The Bund or Ered have much looser restrictions, but financially they generally can't afford or aren't willing to pay sizable transfer fees. Neither are Ligue 1 clubs generally. But any prospect growing up in an EU member nation will have a fair amount of opportunity compared to prospects here.

MLS is fortunate in a way that transfers to top leagues are dependent on being in the NT pool which has a forced ceiling on the number of players who can use that as an advantage for a WP given not more than maybe 30 players will regularly be appearing(assuming A and B team matches) and that other leagues either won't pay large transfer fees or also have non-EU player restrictions. So while our youth NTers are and will increasingly get opportunities abroad in academies, and while the top players will continue see opportunities abroad, MLS will retain a far higher % of the improved players than a country like Belgium would and has. That IMO is more of a reason to really start investing at the grassroots level.

The biggest threat MLS will face with ramped up development is preventing guys like Flores or Rubin, guys without EU passports from getting signed to academies in places like the Ered, Ligue 1 or the Bund for free, as that from the perspective of those leagues works around the "we're not paying sizable transfer fees" issue. Of course the issue from the MLS perspective there is if you don't tie those kids up, and as we've seen with others going abroad who are EU passport holders and those without as well, is we're not getting compensated for developing most of this talent. EPB at SKC is an interesting situation. Reportedly getting a 1m+ big from Juve and hasn't even appeared for the 1st team. Is he the only prospect foreign clubs would pay decent amounts for if they were signed here? Likely not. I also think the EPB situation comes with risk in how it's handled though and that other prospects and their agents are watching it closely. If he signed a HG deal at 16 and a club like Juve comes along, splashing a 1M bid and SKC refuses to sell(which they may or may not ultimately do), it gives more reason for prospects not to sign deal prior to turning 18 and then weigh options after their 18th birthday. If EPB waited until he was 18 to sign that deal he'd be free to sign with Juve and work something out like Rubin/Flores did up until their 18th birthdays and that is likely a more attractive options for our top prospects.

But I maintain MLS will have to be willing to sell the top 5% of prospects/players or they're going to bypass the league all together and there will be little to no compensation, but if those in the 75th to 95th percentile keep improving, MLS will keep a fair amount of that talent and the league will see quite a benefit, as well as our NT pool, unlike a Belgium. So while MLS may lose a top prospect like EPB, who's going to end up in Europe anyway, produce more players like Hedges or Okugo, and MLS will definitely benefit. Likewise, MLS will probably lose Gil, but produce more guys like Trapp, MLS also benefits. The problem and fear comes in when we consider losing a guy like Yedlin, as there's practically no other fullback prospects with his potential at his age we're seeing. There's a steep falloff. If we did, losing him would be much more tolerable. It's about the conveyor belt Friedel alluded too which right now a country like Japan is seeing vast improvement in compared to us. And the Japanese player like us will be limited in his movement as we are. Bund is a threat but they still face employment restrictions elsewhere and they have more and more talent coming through the pipeline where they aren't as scared to lose a player here or there. The Japanese fan gets to watch their top players play in top leagues, which they love, just as many here like watching Clint in the EPL or Bradley in Serie A, but they also are seeing quite a boost in the quality of their domestic league at the same time as those in the 75th-95th percentile largely end up staying put.

 

Not sure exactly what you mean by this. In England, the rule is a player has to be within 50 miles (I think) of home. Of course, for a London kid, that means over a dozen professional clubs to choose from.

But while I think @sidefootsitter exaggerates the point he's making, yes, MLS coaching is poor. They're getting kids to turn pro at 18, 19, 20, but far too many of them stagnate at that point.

But here's MY thought...it's not that MLS coaches are BAD at improving young players. It's that that's not their job. MLS teams have a head coach, a GK coach, and probably 2 other coaches. That's not enough staff, I believe, to take the time to improve Will Trapp or Jack McInerney. If Trapp or Jack Mac improve, it's gonna be their own doing.