My Theory on USSF's Possible Change In Approach to Player Development

[SeaOtter]

In thinking about our development situation more and more over the last couple of days, it has occurred to me that the current crop of U17's just got a very South American flavor added to their development with the appointment of Wilmer Cabrera. I'm wondering if this couldn't signal the turning of a corner in the way we are developing youth and why we have Bradley and Nowak currently at the more senior level.

If you think about it, the upper level Nats are more or less beyond the development stage. With the exception of the mental side of the game, they are mature players. By that I mean that their skillsets are pretty much fully developed.

If you are the USSF and you know the limitations of your player pool, why would you spend major money for a high dollar coach when you know that more than likely you wouldn't reap the benefits. For example, if you want to play a more "attractive, flowing" brand of soccer in a more attacking (say 4-3-3) setup at the senior level, and you don't believe that enough of your players have the skillset to pull it off why would you spend the money on a coach that is inclined to run the 4-3-3?

It makes sense to keep a coach like Bradley, do the best you can with what you have while you begin to grow youth in the direction you want the senior team to go. As the "first generation" (Wilmer's group) of your new blood grow, you grow (replace) your coaching and coaching mentality thru the U20's, U23's, up to the Nats.

And, when those players come of age and begin populating the senior side, then you spend the money on a high caliber coach so that you maximize your investment.

Maybe this is totally out in left field and doesn't make much sense. It's just a theory about the developmental direction we might be headed in thats been floating around in my head for a while.

Also, this is not meant to be a ding against any coach or player. I just don't believe we have the tools to do what a lot of you (us) want the team to be doing. And that all stems from the development mentality that we've had for so long. And it's why I've been defending BB. I believe that he's doing a good job trying to maximize what we do have.

I thought about posting this in one of the many "Let's Trash A Bradley" threads out there, but figured that it would just get lost in the fray. Plus I'd just like to get everyone's feedback.

[pollo1970]

Your analysis makes perfect sense. Most guys on the senior level won't evolve into radically different players. They can benefit from experience, but they won't grow that much technically. Nonetheless, the kids still have great room for growth and hiring someone who can teach them more a more skillful brand of soccer is a big step in the right direction, and of course, the idea is for this new playing mentality to carry over to the U20s, the U23s as well as the senior side. I think it'll be about a decade before we see the national team really benefit from this new approach.

[burbod01]

Having a coach that has taken mediocre teams past their abilities in international competition is exactly what we should be looking for. Why would anyone want to progress, admittedly, at a normal rate when there is the possibility to excel?

[JohnR]

Trouble with the theory is that the current crop of U17s, as with all Bradenton crops, is a tiny handful of players, and Bradenton only has them for a short time.

If the next generation of American players is to be more skillful than the past, Bradenton Residency program will have precious little to do with it.

[SeaOtter]

Trouble with the theory is that the current crop of U17s, as with all Bradenton crops, is a tiny handful of players, and Bradenton only has them for a short time.

If the next generation of American players is to be more skillful than the past, Bradenton Residency program will have precious little to do with it.

But you still have a core group of Nats with skill enough to implement a more attacking, flowing brand of soccer waiting those U17's. The 18 (Jozy) to 24 year old Nats will be either in their prime or beginning to get that as the current U17's begin arriving.

I don't believe the player pool will be nearly as thin by that time and that more and more players will arrive at the senior level with a better skillset.

Also, I neglected to mention that I'm hoping that this change to a more latin flavor of development will coincide with development by position, meaning that we begin developing LB's to be LB's for instance rather than sticking other field players in that position and hoping they can grow into the position.

[SeaOtter]

Having a coach that has taken mediocre teams past their abilities in international competition is exactly what we should be looking for. Why would anyone want to progress, admittedly, at a normal rate when there is the possibility to excel?

I'm not arguing that we should hold onto BB until we're ready for this to be fully implemented. If we find an overacheiving coach in the mean time, by all means get him.

What I would say is a waste is chasing after a name coach who's already not sure he wants the job and throwing a lot of money at him to help him make up his mind. Like a Klinsman or a Capello. I just don't believe we're prepared to maximize the kind of investment getting a coach like that would require in this cycle.

[DestroyerDaMarc]

I'm not arguing that we should hold onto BB until we're ready for this to be fully implemented. If we find an overacheiving coach in the mean time, by all means get him.

What I would say is a waste is chasing after a name coach who's already not sure he wants the job and throwing a lot of money at him to help him make up his mind. Like a Klinsman or a Capello. I just don't believe we're prepared to maximize the kind of investment getting a coach like that would require in this cycle.

For me, I think Bradenton is a graveyard of players with promise who have fallen off the face of the Earth. Very few have succeded while at the Academy, only two names, Micheal Bradley and Eddie Johnson can say Bradenton was a bonus in their direction (and the verdict is out on Johnson). Where players need to develope is overseas after being a promise at a club academy; there and only there will we see a wonderful improvement in the quality of play.

[SeaOtter]

For me, I think Bradenton is a graveyard of players with promise who have fallen off the face of the Earth. Very few have succeded while at the Academy, only two names, Micheal Bradley and Eddie Johnson can say Bradenton was a bonus in their direction (and the verdict is out on Johnson). Where players need to develope is overseas after being a promise at a club academy; there and only there will we see a wonderful improvement in the quality of play.

There's no point having a national team if you don't strive to have a home grown development system. I freely admit that there are problems with development here, especially where the USSF is concerned. But, I'm hoping that signing Wilmer signals a change in the right direction.

You're answer to development may be best for some players in the short term, but that can't be the ongoing answer. No other major footballing nation does that. And, if that's what we aim to be, then neither can we.

[Raulduke]

As far as player development goes, we definitely need a new direction towards players with more technical ability. It doesn't matter what formation you play, most games are won and lost by who controls the midfield possession. If you don't have players with enough technical skill to move and distribute the ball with pressure applied from the defending third to the attacking third, you are going to concede the majority of possession time to the other side and most likely the greater scoring opportunities in both number and quality. Our last match against Mexico is a very clear example of this.

I think my biggest gripe with Bradley is continuity. There is none. I understand the next cup is still 3 years away and we haven't stated qualifying yet, but I think he needs to come to a decision on who the core members of that team are going to be and start playing them together whenever possible. That doesn't mean he's going to lock himself in to any one lineup or rotation at this stage, but it does mean he needs to decide on 16 or so core members and play around with the last 7 members moving them in and out and see how they play with the best 16. We didn't do that last cycle and it showed.

[sidefootsitter]

Sorry, SeaOtter, but you're way off here.

1) Skill - both technical and tactical - is an "improvable" variable.

2) The team looks like sh!t because of who's in charge. The players themselves are in the competent to decent range. Put in a quality Dutch coach and you'll not recognize the US after three months.

[Maximum Optimal]

It makes sense to keep a coach like Bradley, do the best you can with what you have while you begin to grow youth in the direction you want the senior team to go. As the "first generation" (Wilmer's group) of your new blood grow, you grow (replace) your coaching and coaching mentality thru the U20's, U23's, up to the Nats.

And, when those players come of age and begin populating the senior side, then you spend the money on a high caliber coach so that you maximize your investment.

Maybe this is totally out in left field and doesn't make much sense.

I would say this is in left field, but if it makes you feel better, left field is better than the bleachers which is where most of the stuff around here belongs.

More seriously, the changes you mention regarding player caliber are occurring faster than you realize. We will be a quite different team in two years when Adu and Altidore are fully integrated. Bob Bradley seems to understand the upside of getting those two integrated and if I had to bet I'd say he will do a pretty good job of adjusting how the team plays to reflect their talents.

[Adam Zebrowski]

i do agree skill can be increased over time, as you get exposed to a better quality over that time...

the question becomes what's the upside.....

play versus the best available on the planet, and you either adapt or get tossed back elsewhere...

play mls all the time and you reach a certain level, possibly, but never get tested enough to get better...

take a good student and never challenge him, and you never get to reach much beyond the surface...

place the student where he needs to work, and you never know the limits of the student....

eventually usa produces more talent and will nurture it, it won't be a perfect fit for all, but with scouts from everywhere looking for guys who can play, the odds of missing players lessen.

[DestroyerDaMarc]

There's no point having a national team if you don't strive to have a home grown development system. I freely admit that there are problems with development here, especially where the USSF is concerned. But, I'm hoping that signing Wilmer signals a change in the right direction.

You're answer to development may be best for some players in the short term, but that can't be the ongoing answer. No other major footballing nation does that. And, if that's what we aim to be, then neither can we.

No but where not a major footballing nation. Its soccer and for most kids who play soccer is a sport but not a passion that it is for the players. In order to build that passion we need them to go to the most passionate soccer stadiums on Earth where its life or death.

I wouldn't even care if they went to Argentina or Ecuador just as long as this system creates the best possible player possible.

[SeaOtter]

Sorry, SeaOtter, but you're way off here.

1) Skill - both technical and tactical - is an "improvable" variable.

2) The team looks like sh!t because of who's in charge. The players themselves are in the competent to decent range. Put in a quality Dutch coach and you'll not recognize the US after three months.

I allowed for the mental side of the game which falls under "tactical". I think you'd find it difficult to argue that it's much easier to improve technical skill at 15 than it is at the avg age of the senior level and that there is more time to add to a skillset at that age. Something a more gifted and worldly coach would be able to work on. I doubt that BB or any club coach is working on anything more than honing the skillset that senior players already possess. If I wasn't clear earlier, this was my intention.

I'd strongly disagree that the team looks like shit. I do think that it's getting about time that BB begin settling on the first team and primary backups and getting those players as much playing time together as is possible. Then use the left over spots to continue to look for new talent and synergies.

[SeaOtter]

I would say this is in left field, but if it makes you feel better, left field is better than the bleachers which is where most of the stuff around here belongs.

More seriously, the changes you mention regarding player caliber are occurring faster than you realize. We will be a quite different team in two years when Adu and Altidore are fully integrated. Bob Bradley seems to understand the upside of getting those two integrated and if I had to bet I'd say he will do a pretty good job of adjusting how the team plays to reflect their talents.

I hope that they are moving faster than I realize. I'm aware of what's occurring with Jozy and Freddy. And no one wants them to drastically change the fortunes of the Nats, but at the same time I'm imagining a team where the Jerome's and Renken's are making that change even more profound.:D

[SeaOtter]

Sorry. Just remembered the Multi Quote option.

i do agree skill can be increased over time, as you get exposed to a better quality over that time...

the question becomes what's the upside.....

play versus the best available on the planet, and you either adapt or get tossed back elsewhere...

play mls all the time and you reach a certain level, possibly, but never get tested enough to get better...

take a good student and never challenge him, and you never get to reach much beyond the surface...

place the student where he needs to work, and you never know the limits of the student....

eventually usa produces more talent and will nurture it, it won't be a perfect fit for all, but with scouts from everywhere looking for guys who can play, the odds of missing players lessen.

That's exactly what I'm hopeful for with Bradenton and the South American mentality of Cabrera.

No but where not a major footballing nation. Its soccer and for most kids who play soccer is a sport but not a passion that it is for the players. In order to build that passion we need them to go to the most passionate soccer stadiums on Earth where its life or death.

I wouldn't even care if they went to Argentina or Ecuador just as long as this system creates the best possible player possible.

I know we're not a major footballing nation. My hope is that's what we aspire to be. The best develope their own talent which is what we should be concentrating on. However, I have no problem with getting our young players exposure to the soccer mad masses outside of The States.

Again. I'm sorry for not using the Multi Quote option more.

[DestroyerDaMarc]

I know we're not a major footballing nation. My hope is that's what we aspire to be. The best develope their own talent which is what we should be concentrating on. However, I have no problem with getting our young players exposure to the soccer mad masses outside of The States.

I actually hope soccer becomes a Top 3 sport (please beat NASCAR & the NBA) but doesn't overtake the 3 already on offer. I like the fact we have hockey, football, and baseball. It offers many different avenues to watch instead of soccer being the center of most country sports in the world.

But the best develope talent on the local to regional club level. Most teams are getting intelligent and are getting Youth Academies, here's why. You can develope a local or regional prodigy and that prodigy can have a bit of loyalty in him due to his staying at a club that developed him.

[SeaOtter]

But the best develope talent on the local to regional club level. Most teams are getting intelligent and are getting Youth Academies, here's why. You can develope a local or regional prodigy and that prodigy can have a bit of loyalty in him due to his staying at a club that developed him.

This is one of the biggest stories in recent U.S. Soccer history IMO. If the MLS club teams can invest in local talent, develop it, and sell it later on for profit, then major clubs throughout the world will come here to do the same thing especially with the dollar being weak against the Euro and Pound.

I don't see the concept of Bradenton going away anytime soon, at least not until all the MLS clubs (all 20 to 24 of the proposed MLS total) has a working and successful academy system. Until then I believe the USSF concept will persist and maybe beyond.

I have to admit that I don't know how foreign youth systems work. If someone with knowledge of them could help out, is there a Bradenton type entity for say England or Brazil or whoever? Or do they more or less pull from professional club team acadamies?

[JohnR]

at the same time I'm imagining a team where the Jerome's and Renken's are making that change even more profound.:D

We've been over this before, but I do wonder why your selections for "skill" players happen to be two guys who hit puberty really, really early.

That is odd, as there really isn't any connection between the top adult players and the date of the onset of puberty, at least not that I have ever heard of.

[Pablo Chicago]

Trouble with the theory is that the current crop of U17s, as with all Bradenton crops, is a tiny handful of players, and Bradenton only has them for a short time.

If the next generation of American players is to be more skillful than the past, Bradenton Residency program will have precious little to do with it.

Since the goal of the US Soccer Development Academy is to essentially replicate what we have in Bradenton accross the country, the Bradenton Residency program will play a key role in the development of the next generation of American players.

In response to this thread's title, the Development Academy represents more that a possible change in the USSF's approach to player development, it's a complete overhaul.

Last year, in their DA presentation, the USSF wasn't shy about listing what's wrong with player development. They also reviewed youth development programs in countries like Agentina, Brazil, Germany, and France to name a few.

Over 60 clubs across the country have removed themselves from the ODP, Regional, State, Super-Y spiderweb that fosters player burnout and are currently trying to replicate Bradenton at the local level.

Steps (albeit long overdue) in the right direction.