Honestly, I want to know why some of our prospects aren't as motivated as Gatt, O'brien, Bradley, and Dempsey to get to the highest levels they can. The thing about MLS and American soccer in general compared to all our other American sports is that guys in MLS seem to be okay with their subpar level of play and salary. This is incredibly unamerican.
But if all talented players do leave ASAP, then the USA is going to be in the situation that third-tier teams find themselves in time and again: depending on two or three good players from top leagues, and the rest of the team made up of second-rate local league players. All the best teams have at the very least decent leagues, where solid talent remains for longuer --and often for good. That raises the level of the league and helps hugely when you don't have to depend just on two or three "cracks" playing abroad. The second-tier South American countries, for example, have slowly moved from exporting players ASAP to keeping them longer and longer, to make their own local leagues quite competitive. That is one of the reasons they have moved up from being in the 20-30 rank to now having several of them in the Top 20. That's what the USA needs to do too, and what Mexico is finally doing. The MLS is not half as bad as it used to be. I'd say the strongest MLS teams are about par with England mid-table championship sides right now. Just a few years ago, they were playing like bottom League 1 teams at best. Klinsmann is relying on some MLS players to fill spots that are either sub-par or unavailable when only using Europe-based players. Now, he can rely on players like Shea, EJ, Zusi, Beckerman and Buddle. Same with Bob before. As time goes by, having a solid local league is going to become more and more important. The supporting cast has to be good too, can't rely on only the star players.
Not all, just the talented ones. Pontius has never had trouble being a good player in this league he should want to leave but he signed an extension.
But your a LD10 fan, I was referring to Everton fans in England with no yankee allegiance. Thanks Suy and Berks for the response.
It could also be that that some guys want to stay at home and help to improve the level of play and popularity of the sport in their country. They may not be reaching the highest levels of play at the club level, but that's pretty stinkin American.
Pontius - is he that good that he is a sure thing abroad? These guys are trying to make a living and weighing a multi-year contract domestically vs the unknown abroad is a lot easier for us to do on BS than the person who has bills to pay. If Pontius had the sense that there were clubs lining up to sign him at $500K/yr plus over a few years if his contract was up, it would make the decision easier. Not sure that was the case. Also, a player being out of contract is not the best feeling since if you wind up getting hurt, you are screwed.
Some of these young men are not as enamoured of money as some of us seem to be. Some would rather take a 200K/year paycheck while staying around the girlfriend, mom and the buds, instead of going far to some land where no one knows them, even if they make twice as much there. See Neymar, in Brazil, who could have gone to Europe long ago if he really wanted it. He could have forced Santos's hand. But some people value human relationships above wealth, when they're already making enough for their needs and their wanted luxuries.
I highly doubt that, and I know some MLS fans disagree with me, but I just don't think that's reality. Players careers are relatively short compared to other professions. One goal is always to set yourself up as best you can financially for your life after soccer. Players also dream of playing in the best leagues and at high levels of competition. Players don't forgo opportunities to make twice as much money or more, and to play at big clubs to instead prop up their domestic league. If you're a life long MLSer, it's usually because you aren't good enough to get a good opportunity elsewhere(a better league, jumping to Norway wouldn't count for example), which is fine, but that's different than being good enough for other opportunities, and turning them down for the betterment of your league. And I sure don't want young American players growing dreaming of playing for RSL, and making MLS the 12th best league in the world rather than the 15th best league, or whatever it is. I want young Americans dreaming of playing in UCL, playing for a Bayern, a Man U, a Real Madrid. They might not get there, but that dream to play with the best will get you farther. It's not like MB when his dad was coaching Chicago dreamed of helping Chicago become the best MLS team it could. No, Serie A was his favorite league and he dreamed of playing for big clubs in Italy. Nowitzki didn't dream of propping up the German basketball league. He dreamed of playing in the NBA and left when he got the opportunity. Tony Parker didn't dream of making the French league the best it could be, he dreamed of playing in the NBA, and came when he got the chance. Same for numerous other internationals, in soccer, basketball and baseball. The best players migrate to the best leagues. If you might not be good enough to make it, then staying home becomes an easier decision. But it's not to help your league prosper. MLS isn't full of martyrs who are simply sacrificing for the betterment of the league. If a Davis or a Pontius were good enough to be offered 1M a year playing for Valencia, for example, I highly doubt they turn that down because MLS's prosperity is more important to them.
I too am discouraged. But I don't think it has anything to do with a blind eye. Coaches can't teach what they don't know. US coaches can't develop creativity. They don't know how. We've seen it with Gaven. We've seen it with Gil. I spoke recently to a Timbers player most of us would agree is one of the more talented players to come through the US system, maybe ever. He said in his first two years, the team didn't spend one minute working on attacking movement off the ball. He was screamed at if he tried to take a guy on in the center of the field. He was coached constantly on his defense. His coaches had little instruction when it came to attack, except going bonkers when they wanted him to play it safer. We've seen it in Freddy. We want attackers to submit to the will of the coach. For some reason, we must "break them," and then build them back as #8's - apparently the good guys of soccer. It pisses me off. Fortunately, younger players know it and are getting the hell out. Flores left. Joya wasn't highly regarded because he wasn't athletic enough and didn't work hard enough. So he left and is on the fringes of the Santos first team. Martinez left. Corona left. It's sad, but if US coaches are going to keep beating the creativity out of our attacking players, it's better for us in the long run.
The top prospects for the most part do jump abroad, and the ones who do stay here, Gil, Kitchen, Salgado, Okugo, Villareal for example, are more products of IMG or foreign academies, in Salgado and Villareal. The two best academy products imo, Agudelo and Najar, were born elsewhere and obviously influenced at a young age abroad. If you take kids from IMG, kids who spent time in foreign academies, kids who went the college route as MLS has a huge gape in development in 18-22 yr olds, out of the equation, the top prospects MLS is responsible for are few and far between. It'll change over time as the academies are young, but MLS doesn't have a good track record of development and coaching is the biggest issue. There's actually some good threads discussing just this.
This may be true but if they recieve an offer to play in a league that is not a significant step up (Denmark or Norway) for a nominal salary increase, they may choose to stay in MLS.
Well, yeah. I specifically pointed out Norway. If we had players turning down deals to play in top 4-7 leagues, with large pay increases to instead stay in MLS, then I can see where the counter argument holds weight.
That this is somehow debatable baffles me. Nutmeg, you were here back when Gaven was 17 and Mapp was 19 and Freddy was 14, and I don't think the worst case scenario anyone had back then was that none of them would be in contention for a roster spot in qualifying in 2012 at what should be the peaks of their careers. I just don't see how people think it's just coincidence that our piano movers seem to develop fine and our piano players stagnate and either adjust and become piano movers (like Gaven) or wither on the vine like Adu and Mapp. But to address this the US coaching fraternity has to point the finger at themselves instead of at the players, and they just aren't going to do that. Even more to the point, I have no idea how good we are in Water Polo or Curling because I have no interest in Water Polo or Curling. If we were to neanderthal our way to better results, that would be fine but it would come at a cost of making us really un-entertaining. We can't lose sight of the 'spectator' aspect of 'spectator sport', particularly seeing as we're in a position where we'd all like to see the sport grow in popularity. Watching a bunch of d-mids grind out joyless results is probably not going to help much in that regard. Soccer fans get mad when others call soccer 'boring,' but American soccer right now _is_ 'boring,' dreadfully so I'm afraid. Adu, Gaven and Mapp as teenagers were not.
Part of this comes from the disincentives against developing creativity that we've had built into the system for so many years. A coach who tries to develop creativity isn't likely to advance very far in a system with a win-at-all-costs mentality. Even with the emphasis moving toward development in the last couple years, it'll probably be a while before risk-taking youth coaches move up in the system. (Some of the coaches already in the system might loosen up too, but old habits are hard to change.) At the moment, even development-focused clubs have to make do with the coaches currently available, who have spent years getting all the risk-taking hammered out of them by a system that demanded wins at U-12 level or younger.
Back with Mississippi Maradona and the AAXI. What blows me away is that we understand and accept that Wide Receivers think every ball should be thrown their way, that a Michael Jordan is going to be pissed if the last play isn't drawn up for him, or that a pitcher is going to sulk when they think they were taken out too soon. But god effing forbid a young soccer player have a personality.
Maybe, but that doesn't explain John Spencer. His hiring indicates to me this is more systemic. He was touted as a great future coach. And when he got here, he was just another US youth soccer coach. Preaching defense. Preaching effort. Bemoaning not putting away the 3 good chances the Timbers created per game (all against the run of play). No creative ideas. Rudimentary tactical understanding of the game. Screaming at his players for 90 minutes, literally telling them where to pass the ball. I think too many in US Soccer think this is how the game is SUPPOSED to be coached. These are the players we're supposed to develop. A nation of worker bees.
I'm pretty sure the 'Mississippi Maradona' one was mine, and I'm pretty sure it was said half jokingly. Mapp was probably the most 'anti-American' American player of all-time. God what a waste.
THe biggest part of developing creative players is basically them playing on their own every day on the streetball level. thats it right there. till we have more players doing that day in day out we are just wishing things would change.
As a matter of fact, just give kids a soccer ball at age 5 and kick it around with them from time to time and get them into informal games 3 on 3, e.g., and they will develop confidence in what they can do with the ball 1 v 1 and play without stopping to think/look.