Feyenoord for the third year running has earned the Rinus Michels Award for the best Youth Academy in the Netherlands and even Cruijf commented on the issue of how an Academy should be he praised the Feyenoord Academy. This Academy he said is everything it should be. By the way the Dutch Youth Academy was developed and implemented as the first in the world by Feyenoord and when Ajax in the 80'th lured Beenhakker (than Director of the Feyenoord Academy) away, he took with him the blue prints of our Academy and copied it over there. The whole philosophy of how we should develop our youngsters was initiated and developed at Feyenoord by our famous coach Wiel Coerver. Ajax fans are all about bragging how good their players from their Academy are, but the best club in the world Barcelona (the club Ajax fans call an Ajax clone) doesnot think that to be true as they didnot contract for over a decade any Ajax raised player and yet they won the CL with Gio van Bronckhorst (Feyenoord), contracted Afellay, M van Bommel and are now eyeing Maher (AZ). When was the last time that Famous Ajax Academy developed a top striker worthy to wear the Orange jersey? Since Kluivert it is a dry spell in Amsterdam and they need to buy strikers or else they have a problem.
Not 20, although the self proclaimed "elite" clubs will insist that 20 or more are needed.....remember they need "payers" as much as they need "players"...
There are a hell of a lot more Dutchmen playing for the world's TOP clubs (and no, Fulham ain't one of 'em) than there are Americans....and always have been.
What does comparing the Dutch players with American players have to do with anything? We all know the Dutch produce better players then the US does, just like they produce better players then the English.
It is about the reason why we produce them in the first place, which is the fault that causes the USA not to produce them. We donot have the young kids target the win to please parents or who ever, but on the contrary focus on the development of first the skills and later on the tactical capabilities. Focusing on winning isnot helping any development of skills.
I read a while back an article interviewing Ricardo Teixeira who was the President of Brazilian soccer who said something similar. He said that in places like Spain and Holland the coaches are more interested in development then they are in winning. In Brazil, they are taught from an early age that they must win everything. He said that it's a mentality that needs to change if they are to regain they place as the best soccer nation in the world. This mentality is the same in the US. From a young age in all sports, kids are taught they have to win. Winning takes precedent over development. Kids in sports within the US are brought up in very competitive environments, no matter what people say that will never change. US youth coaches will also look to win. It's not a bad thing either. The more your winning at something the more enjoyable that activity is which will make you push yourself to get better and develop your skill.
Historically the greatest players never saw a "coach" until they were 12 or so (although apparently Messi was 11 when "discovered") many of them even later. The reason the USA has failed to produce a SINGLE outfield player who has played for any length of time for any of the world's TOP clubs is that the current "elite" club system is a total joke and is ALL about making money.
Michels, Cruyff, van Gaal, Rijkaard, Johan Neeskens and ten Cate. What do they all have in common? The Oranje squads are filled with Ajax academy products in abundance, yet you want to focus on one particular position? Ajax have practically scored the most goals in Eredivisie for a number of seasons including the last one where they've scored 93 goals. So what problem are you referring to? Sure I concede that Babel and Lens haven't exactly set the world on fire, but who was the latest striker uberhaupt that Feyenoord have produced that even made it to Oranje? When Ajax scored 106 league goals in 09/10, Feyenoord only had 54 goals to show for and conceded 31. Your goal difference was +23, Ajax had a goal difference of +86.. but it's Ajax that has a problem?
Since Kluivert it is a dry spell in Amsterdam and they need to buy strikers or else they have a problem. The goals scored by Ajax are in majority by bought players, that's the problem I mentioned...so what's your comment on that? And by the way....the shit holes of the EPL like Chelsea and ManCity plunder our Academy of young players and not that of Ajax...maybe that is because we have now three years running the best Academy?
"Albuquerque. See, I can do it too. Snorkel." what's your point in reference to Clint's 2 yr old post?
Why are you bragging about your academy players leaving your club for free? I'm sorry, but are you deliberately misleading? Our topscorer last season was Siem de Jong. Both your topscorers were on loan signings who won't return next season. Their goals stood for 1/3rd of your total. Now there's a problem.
Do countries like Ghana and Ivory Coast invest lots of money in youth systems? Because they have more players at top teams than the US does.
Do the pro clubs that bring children from Ghana and Ivory Coast to their academies scout as heavily in the United States?
I haven't read the whole thread, and its probably been mentioned, but distances are also a major advantage for Germany. Its such a dense country that ideas and philosophies can spread like a virus throughout the country. Its like a petri dish. Not to mention you also have the equally dense experimentation taking place across the borders in Netherlands, France, Spain etc. You can have easy access to coaches and players from other countries. It's just a great environment as there are separate forces all working to gain some advantage over the other, but are so closely tied together that most ideas will spread across the region. As Simon Kuper pointed out in Soccernomics, there's a good reason why western Europe has not only led world soccer for some time, but why its philosophies are being exported even as far as Brazil. Significantly, changes can be enacted nationwide without too much trouble. Compare that to over here, where ideas can potentially be difficult to spread. Strong strategic guidance is necessary, but then resources like money are stretched.
The major difference is that Ghana's and Cote d'Ivoire's starting XI play at some of the most developed soccer clubs in the world, and were brought up in academies and environments far different from what Abidjan or Yaounde can offer. Didier Drogba, Yaya Toure, or Michael Essien didn't become what they are by playing in their respective countries. It happened in France (well, at least with Didier and Yaya, I'm not too sure on Yaya but most likely the same route). France develops a lot of players for former French colonies in Africa, what with them being French speaking and all. And France is a good place to start if you're looking to educate players. There are two ways to be competitive in international soccer: 1) Have one of the leading leagues in the world, that attracts the best players in the world so that your internationals are exposed to high quality week in week out, and; 2) Export a large percentage of your squad to strong leagues around the world, including having a few at the very top. African countries, with whatever success they've had, have achieved this through the second way. This is a major advantage of the US, in that we'll be able to one day host a league that is one of the most competitive in the world, while Africa will still be relying on exporting. For me, the 1st option is far more advantageous than the 2nd.
Soccernomics was a very good read. Before globalization and the digital age it took ideas longer to spread. But now they spread quickly. So it's not as if we aren't aware of them here. I think these ideas are difficult to spread in America because in many ways we are still focused on the American way and Americanizing the sport when we should be accepting these ideas and implementing them. We definitely need a more congruent soccer pyramid with incentives at each level. Our franchise system stifles growth and the end result is a weaker national team. We need the right coaching but we also need the right structure so that the pipeline for talented to players to follow is easy to understand. It's shocking to me that we would make some kid enter a draft, force him to join a certain team, and then move across the country to play soccer when he should be playing on a team in the city he already lives in.
I agree with most of your post, but the bolded bit is an erroneous conclusion to come to. Things that seem obvious are, in fact, far from it. For example, England just yesterday enacted changes to its youth development in regards to full size pitches and small sided games. It is 2012, and England have known about strategies used in western European countries for some time, and despite this the FA said that the process of education was onerous and long, and met with a lot of resistance. If I recall, educating the country (as tiny and soccer driven as England is) took over 2 years and something like 140 seminars. Why has it taken so long, despite globalization and access to expertise? Traditions and mindsets are difficult to break down. This is just one example of how ideas can be available globally, but their actual implementation is met with more resistance than one might assume, considering the obvious benefits they bring. Changing a particular mindset does not happen overnight, and takes a long time even if the answers are obvious. Japan for example had no real methodology ingrained in their system when they decided to reform soccer from the ground up. 20 years later, its adoption of policies used in western Europe are creating a burgeoning base of talented players who are good enough for a number of those same western European clubs. Unfortunately, the US still has to undergo that revolution, much in the same way that England has only really been doing so for the past few years.
yes good point. Lots of sociological factors go into it. There must be a tipping point then. What made Japan decide to go to a more European model? Why do we in America resist the European model?
How has nobody in 3 pages mentioned that the main problem with our youth development is there just isn't that much money in domestic soccer in this country. The majority of our first division teams have the budget of a triple A baseball team. I'm pretty sure MLS teams would love for their players to have a pro league for 18-23 year olds or a baseball development system, but they barely have the money for a reserve league/us open cup. I'd say given the budget and general interest constraints, ussoccer has actually done a decent job implementing a development system that is more in line with the rest of the world with the development academy, and the homegrown rules in mls. Maybe one day when the Top 10 favorite teams in America aren't teams from Europe/Mexico we can have Ajax level academies but we are a long way of from that.
I wouldn't say its the main problem. Even if we had double the money that we do now, we'd still be doing the wrong things as far as player development and how we structure our domestic leagues. the problem isn't that MLS clubs only have the funds for a reserve league. That's pretty irrelevant actually.The problem is MLS is only 19 clubs and we are a country of over 300 million. MLS can only tap into a tiny part of the potential pool of future talent. Just look at most of Europe (especially Germany). Their system relies on two things: efficiency and calculability. efficiency in this sense basically means the most optimum way of going from A to B. In this equation A= talent and B = club. In Germany how far does A have to go for B? Not very far. There are clubs in every city that are in the pipeline that are connected to pro clubs. If the player is good enough he gets the training and moves up the ladder. But there is always competition. If the player is not good enough he will be replaced with another young player who is. This excess of talent creates calculability, where the best and the ones who make it not only have the technical and athletic ability, but also the drive. now compare this to the U.S. We are a much larger country so we have different challenges but how efficient are we at getting A to B? If A lives in NYC or Los Angeles or D.C then we aren't that bad (still not good). But those are just three cities. The A that lives in San Francisco, or San Diego, or most of Florida(a state that is second only to California in the amount of athletes it produced) our A to B efficiency is horrendous. Then there is calculability. We are producing 5 "can't miss" prospects but we need all 5 to make it. Germany produces 100 because not all will make it. Some won't have the drive, some will get injured etc. On top of that we make it very difficult for young players we do produce to play for clubs they want to play for. We force young players to enter a draft and those who sign Generation Adidas contracts don't get to choose the club they play for. These young players should be living and playing in the cities where their family is. Not moving half way across the country then sitting on the bench at an MLS club.
I generally agree with your points. I just don't see how we can fix most of the development problems in the US with the current budget we have now. If MLS was half as popular in the NFL, and the salary cap was around 30+ million; I sincerely believe you would see some Ajax light academies pop up around the country. Plenty of MLS teams have youth affiliates in non mls markets that have produced players for their main youth teams. (Dallas has one in El Paso that has produced players for their Dallas DA team, Kellen Guilley signed with fire out of their Mississippi affiliate, and the Galaxy raid other local teams for their best players) The thing about youth development is it takes time for it pay off especially with the Wal Mart prices we are putting into it now. I'm pretty excited to see what the first generation of kids that never lived a day without MLS being in existence end up achieving. I think we are making progress just not at the pace people want to see. God knows we have a long way to go with the age group of 18-23 being the biggest gap. I don't really see allocating the best prospects to awful teams that need good players now, as a bad thing. It should in theory increase their odds of playing time thus odds of success. I completely agree that the southeast in general (mainly Atlanta/Florida) needs to be tapped. Also isn't San Jose considered the Same metro as San Francisco?
They did the European model because they had the financial wherewithal to try it. Corporate support for the JFA is substantial and their annual budget dwarfs that of the USSF. Taking a quick run through the major international team sports: soccer, baseball, cricket, rugby, volleyball, and basketball. It's going to be tough for Japan to compete in rugby, volleyball, and basketball on the world stage. They have acquitted themselves well in VB and decently in rugby, but as the sports mature and competition among a wider pool of countries becomes more common, status diminishes...which is why the Japan men's team hasn't been relevant in VB for the last 30 years and why they've gone 0-19 vs. Six Nations, ARG, NZ, OZ, SA and pacific island nations in the rugby WC--basically only being competitive one time. Cricket is out thanks to baseball. So that leaves soccer as the obvious cause to champion. And Japan has a long history of picking "national champions" in industry, so why should "national sports" be any different? Corporate ownership of teams as part of this strategy really kickstarted the J-league itself so corporate money was there for a more thorough development scheme. And then you have the last 20 years of the Japanese economy. Everything has gone flat, so a lot of federal money is pumped into infrastructure projects (stadia included). The density of the country also makes it very easy to promote multiple tiers of the professional game, organized youth training feeding into clubs, etc. It's not that Japan had some sort of magical foresight. They had economic and social conditions that made soccer a bigger priority. If half the people in the US were squeezed into California and half the people were squeezed into the northeast, and football/basketball/hockey were only curiosities, the money would flow because soccer would fill a more important niche. What it boils down to is that pay to play is an economic necessity at this point. And because teams are so spread out and the league needs to hold contracts to maintain sanity (due to lack of funds and infancy), there is insufficient youth development with a clear path to some higher purpose (development at the expense of results to win a spot on the pro team within your club that you see in the developed soccer world). And because of this, winning is unfortunately a big part of marketing a youth club. That will change as a greater percentage of parents "get it", but that takes time. There is no obvious tipping point. Some improvement will be made as the technical ability vs. winning balance shifts as people get more sophisticated, but the underlying barriers of youth to professional path and geographic synergies will take a lot of time. It's an awful lot to ask a kid to focus on development when 30% of the league is making 50K or less. Winning is fun, and with the odds being what they are and the modest paycheck that awaits, winning is relatively more important for a lot of kids and parents. A 20-24 team league with a salary range of 100K and up would go a long way toward "professionalizing the path". So would a true secondary league where players can make 50K to 150K and an easing of territorial restrictions on top flight franchise placement. It may very well make sense economically to have 3 clubs in both NYC and LA if MLS were to take the stance that home grown guys can be retained by their clubs. All of this is going to take a lot of time. It's a lot to ask for in a hurry because US soccer is essentially creating an industry with limited product demand from scratch. It's kind of like building a wine industry from scratch and asking the industry to compete with Italy, France, and Spain. It took Napa 100 years of grape growing and then another 40 years of practice using high end techniques before they got the quality up to degree that merited global recognition. Soccer is basically the same thing w/ some additional barriers. We're about 15 years into a 40 year process. Tweaking the system might accelerate the process 5 years, but only additional $$$ as the sport matures will get us there.