An Indictment of American Player Devopment.

[shooter6065]

http://csrnusa.com/ussoccerspot/?p=781

Oops, spelled development incorrectly and can't seem to edit it.

Can't say I agree with everything in here but he is right about one thing.......losing players like Perkins, Pickens and Noonan to low-rent teams in Europe should have warning lights and sirens going off at USSF Headquarters.
Their is no question England has suffered because of all of the foreigners in the league. Then their is this gem:

"To this point MLS’ has done a remarkable job of deepening the player pool for the US National Team and making the United States in say 2002 more competitive at all levels of competition than at any time previously in the nation’s history of playing the sport. However that has begun to change. At this point in time not a single American field player could make a 23 man Tournament squad for England, Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain or France. These leading European nations are in a position where their worst pool player is better than our best pool player. This wasn’t always the case however, as I could point to several players in the US pool who could have contributed to England’s Euro 2000 or World Cup 2002 campaigns. Today, with England in a state of decline the United States is possibly in a more rapid state of decline which has gone unnoticed by those not maintaining a historical perspective on current events or those buying the refrain that we are always improving soccer in this country."


This pretty much says it all. We still don't have anything close to an elite field player and MLS rosters are now overrun with foreign players with no MLS academies in sight. We have another thread on this board wondering how fast we are coming along and it seems to be we are a bit stalled. We are not "always improving soccer in this country".

[Pandy Flapjack]

That article is pure poppycock

[SeaOtter]

This article is a bit shortsighted and sensationalist in my opinion.

[Untroubled by Reason]

http://csrnusa.com/ussoccerspot/?p=781

Oops, spelled development incorrectly and can't seem to edit it.

Can't say I agree with everything in here but he is right about one thing.......losing players like Perkins, Pickens and Noonan to low-rent teams in Europe should have warning lights and sirens going off at USSF Headquarters.
Their is no question England has suffered because of all of the foreigners in the league. Then their is this gem:

"To this point MLS’ has done a remarkable job of deepening the player pool for the US National Team and making the United States in say 2002 more competitive at all levels of competition than at any time previously in the nation’s history of playing the sport. However that has begun to change. At this point in time not a single American field player could make a 23 man Tournament squad for England, Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain or France. These leading European nations are in a position where their worst pool player is better than our best pool player. This wasn’t always the case however, as I could point to several players in the US pool who could have contributed to England’s Euro 2000 or World Cup 2002 campaigns. Today, with England in a state of decline the United States is possibly in a more rapid state of decline which has gone unnoticed by those not maintaining a historical perspective on current events or those buying the refrain that we are always improving soccer in this country."


This pretty much says it all. We still don't have anything close to an elite field player and MLS rosters are now overrun with foreign players with no MLS academies in sight. We have another thread on this board wondering how fast we are coming along and it seems to be we are a bit stalled. We are not "always improving soccer in this country".The argument seems to hinge on accepting two premises: 1. that there are currently no US field players capable of playing on top international sides; and 2. That there were US players capable of playing for England in the Euro 2000/WC 2002. If you accept these two premises, then it is proof that American Player Development has stagnated, or even moved backward.

There are the following problems with this line of reason. To begin with, I'd wager that there are many people who accept neither of the two premises offered above. They are not self evident, in my view, and are highly debateable. Secondly, even if they were both true, they represent, at best an apples-to-oranges comparison, as anyone with a knowledge of England's 2000 and 2002 squads would agree.

In summary, the very center of your argument does not bear weight.

The part about MLS being "overrun" with foreigners and "no academies in sight" aren't based in fact at all.

[cantona94]

http://csrnusa.com/ussoccerspot/?p=781

Oops, spelled development incorrectly and can't seem to edit it.

Can't say I agree with everything in here but he is right about one thing.......losing players like Perkins, Pickens and Noonan to low-rent teams in Europe should have warning lights and sirens going off at USSF Headquarters.
Their is no question England has suffered because of all of the foreigners in the league. Then their is this gem:

"To this point MLS’ has done a remarkable job of deepening the player pool for the US National Team and making the United States in say 2002 more competitive at all levels of competition than at any time previously in the nation’s history of playing the sport. However that has begun to change. At this point in time not a single American field player could make a 23 man Tournament squad for England, Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain or France. These leading European nations are in a position where their worst pool player is better than our best pool player. This wasn’t always the case however, as I could point to several players in the US pool who could have contributed to England’s Euro 2000 or World Cup 2002 campaigns. Today, with England in a state of decline the United States is possibly in a more rapid state of decline which has gone unnoticed by those not maintaining a historical perspective on current events or those buying the refrain that we are always improving soccer in this country."


This pretty much says it all. We still don't have anything close to an elite field player and MLS rosters are now overrun with foreign players with no MLS academies in sight. We have another thread on this board wondering how fast we are coming along and it seems to be we are a bit stalled. We are not "always improving soccer in this country".

there....there....THERE!!!! Its not that hard to get that one right!

[Clint Eastwood]

That is absolute crap.

There is an example of somebody who simply doesn't get it.

[Crazy_Yank]

Which players, other than goalkeepers, does he think could have contributed? I think Reyna has been our best player and he isn't world class. Nor is McBride.

[Clint Eastwood]

http://csrnusa.com/ussoccerspot/?p=781

Oops, spelled development incorrectly and can't seem to edit it.

Can't say I agree with everything in here but he is right about one thing.......losing players like Perkins, Pickens and Noonan to low-rent teams in Europe should have warning lights and sirens going off at USSF Headquarters.
Their is no question England has suffered because of all of the foreigners in the league. Then their is this gem:



That isn't a question of development. MLS has decided not to overpay for average players like Perkins, Pickens, and Noonan. All three of those guys will be replaced by Americans Wells, John Busch, and Chrisman this season. So I don't know why any sirens would be going off at USSF headquarter. Guys leave for Europe and that opens spots for new guys to get a chance. If the US players aren't good enough to beat out a foreign player for a position, then they'll need to work hard and improve.

[Untroubled by Reason]

Which players, other than goalkeepers, does he think could have contributed? I think Reyna has been our best player and he isn't world class. Nor is McBride.There's already a whole thread addressing this question: http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=663729
No point rehashing it here.

[sidefootsitter]

That article is pure poppycock

That is absolute crap. You2's are right.

[Adam Zebrowski]

the current group of players are essentially of the same quality of those going back to the wc 1994...

big difference, NOW, is there are MORE of them...

as to top end guys, adu and altidore can be those guys who can play for an elite champions league side...

the way adu is steping up at the u-23 level is a very good sign.

[shooter6065]

the current group of players are essentially of the same quality of those going back to the wc 1994...

big difference, NOW, is there are MORE of them...

as to top end guys, adu and altidore can be those guys who can play for an elite champions league side...

the way adu is steping up at the u-23 level is a very good sign.

This is really the essence of it. We just have more of the same.

What the article does not mention in all of this is the problem with the salary cap. Look at how the salary cap changed the NFL. Some of you guys might be a little young but the salary cap totally changed the dynamics of that league. We are seeing how the salary cap evolves in MLS.

In the NFL, the "middle class" players essentially died. Role players were dropped and even some backbone players were simply released not due to football reasons but for salary cap reasons. After a player plays out his initial contract he is simply dropped and the NFL team would simply draft a younger, cheaper player.

HOWEVER, what no one wants to talk about is how this has damaged the NFL. Not commercially but on the field. I could get into a long discussion of this but suffice it to say that the quality of play in the NFL as compared to 15 or 20 years ago is not good. The athletes are better but the skill set is just not there.

[shooter6065]

The argument seems to hinge on accepting two premises: 1. that there are currently no US field players capable of playing on top international sides; and 2. That there were US players capable of playing for England in the Euro 2000/WC 2002. If you accept these two premises, then it is proof that American Player Development has stagnated, or even moved backward.

There are the following problems with this line of reason. To begin with, I'd wager that there are many people who accept neither of the two premises offered above. They are not self evident, in my view, and are highly debateable. Secondly, even if they were both true, they represent, at best an apples-to-oranges comparison, as anyone with a knowledge of England's 2000 and 2002 squads would agree.

In summary, the very center of your argument does not bear weight.

The part about MLS being "overrun" with foreigners and "no academies in sight" aren't based in fact at all.

1. Can you name ONE American field player who would be on the 1st team roster of any of the teams listed?

2. England is not very good. They were not that good in 2000 or 2002. For example, look at the 2002 WC team. Outside of Beckham and Owen, that was a pretty ordinary group of players. Pope, Reyna and McBride all would have had a shot of making that team.

[Adam Zebrowski]

i think having more of the same, who are younger means we need to look at the development curve..

if we had 10 solid players on average from 1994-2006, and now we have 20 solid players with another 15 younger ones on the come...

the chances are, out of the 35 "in the pool", SOME will emerge at the elitest of levels..

right now, adu seems on a good path, and altidore projects too...

bradley, szetela, feilhaber, edu, clark....now there are options, and in the past 2 guys could play, NOW, there are 5 guys, pushing each other, and out of theat 5, ,maybe one or two emerges claerly better than players of the past, at a level HIGHER than a harkes...

i take JOB and ramos as the best of the past...

getting a handful of players to be of BETTER overall quality than they were will change the nature of the national team...these will be guys who could play for other top 10 sides in the world...

in 25 years, perhaps and entire squad of 23 will be of that quality, but that's why the development process NOW is important, to find the best way to nurture such a talent pool

[shooter6065]

MLS has decided not to overpay for average players like Perkins, Pickens, and Noonan. All three of those guys will be replaced by Americans Wells, John Busch, and Chrisman this season.
If Busch, Wells and Christman are so good why didn't they start ahead of Pickens, Perkins and Noonan?

[shooter6065]

The part about MLS being "overrun" with foreigners and "no academies in sight" aren't based in fact at all.

1.

1996 22% of Senior players are foreign.
2008 45% of Senior players are foreign.

Of course, this does not count the growing number of youth internationals. Yes, it sure seems the author was on solid ground here

How many Americans will DC, for example, start this year regularly? 3?

2.

Regarding academies. They are nowhere in sight. If you know any graduates of in-residence MLS academies I would like to meet them.

Truth is, MLS has been paying lip service to youth development since its inception. I have been hearing the same thing for 8 years. I remember when they signed that enormous deal with Adidas a few years back and wondered how much was going to youth development. Not much.

I don't agree with the tone of the whole article, but the author is essentially right. MLS is just not that devoted to developing the American player. The League is well over 10 years old and we are still relying on the colleges which have held up development of your young players. In Brazil, an 18 is playing 11 months a year against professionals. In the USA, an 18 year old is playing a few months a year against amateurs.........the rest of the time is spent studying and partying.

Now which country is going to develop better players?

MLS policies probably make for a more entertaining league but it is at the cost of domestic development.

[Untroubled by Reason]

1.

1996 22% of Senior players are foreign.
2008 45% of Senior players are foreign.

Of course, this does not count the growing number of youth internationals. Yes, it sure seems the author was on solid ground here

How many Americans will DC, for example, start this year regularly? 3?

2.

Regarding academies. They are nowhere in sight. If you know any graduates of in-residence MLS academies I would like to meet them.

Truth is, MLS has been paying lip service to youth development since its inception. I have been hearing the same thing for 8 years. I remember when they signed that enormous deal with Adidas a few years back and wondered how much was going to youth development. Not much.

I don't agree with the tone of the whole article, but the author is essentially right. MLS is just not that devoted to developing the American player. The League is well over 10 years old and we are still relying on the colleges which have held up development of your young players. In Brazil, an 18 is playing 11 months a year against professionals. In the USA, an 18 year old is playing a few months a year against amateurs.........the rest of the time is spent studying and partying.

Now which country is going to develop better players?

MLS policies probably make for a more entertaining league but it is at the cost of domestic development.As in your previous post, there are factual errors in your post that make it difficult for you to defend your point.
- In all likelihood, based on preseason play, there will be 5 DC United starters eligible to play for the United States (Wells, Burch, Namoff, McTavish and Simms).
- In 2008, there is now no special status in MLS for "Youth International" as there was in previous years. There are 8 internationals allowed on each team. Depending on the "Green Card" count, that may or may not be 45%.
- DC United (along with RedBulls, Chicago Fire and I'm not sure about others) has established a youth program, under MLS guidelines. In addition, USSF has established a new locally based youth training setup, in addition to the Bradenton residency.

I don't have the time to keep correcting your errors, so in future try to post without them.

[shooter6065]

- In 2008, there is now no special status in MLS for "Youth International" as there was in previous years. There are 8 internationals allowed on each team. Depending on the "Green Card" count, that may or may not be 45%.
- DC United (along with RedBulls, Chicago Fire and I'm not sure about others) has established a youth program, under MLS guidelines. In addition, USSF has established a new locally based youth training setup, in addition to the Bradenton residency.

I don't have the time to keep correcting your errors, so in future try to post without them.

I know their is no "Youth International" category. I was merely pointing out that, well, we sure do have a lot of young players who are not American. It's better for the league but not necessarily for The National Team program.

"Youth Programs" under MLS guidelines mean nothing. Just because they call it an academy does not mean that it is. Their is no in-residency program in a professional environment........the whole reason for establishing an academy and develop players. The Bradenton academy was a nice idea that should have long ago out lived its usefullness.

Or are you that naive and really do believe that the USSF should control youth development and not local clubs?

[SeaOtter]

1.

1996 22% of Senior players are foreign.
2008 45% of Senior players are foreign.

Of course, this does not count the growing number of youth internationals. Yes, it sure seems the author was on solid ground here

How many Americans will DC, for example, start this year regularly? 3?

2.

Regarding academies. They are nowhere in sight. If you know any graduates of in-residence MLS academies I would like to meet them.

Truth is, MLS has been paying lip service to youth development since its inception. I have been hearing the same thing for 8 years. I remember when they signed that enormous deal with Adidas a few years back and wondered how much was going to youth development. Not much.

I don't agree with the tone of the whole article, but the author is essentially right. MLS is just not that devoted to developing the American player. The League is well over 10 years old and we are still relying on the colleges which have held up development of your young players. In Brazil, an 18 is playing 11 months a year against professionals. In the USA, an 18 year old is playing a few months a year against amateurs.........the rest of the time is spent studying and partying.

Now which country is going to develop better players?

MLS policies probably make for a more entertaining league but it is at the cost of domestic development.

I believe that if you'll go back to the article, you'll find that it does not state that 45% of MLS is foreign, but that that percentage is allowable. And now that I've gone back it doesn't even state that in 94 there were 22%, only that 22% were allowed.

Just because it's allowed doesn't mean that the situation exists.

And with regard to acadamies, MLS did not mandate that the clubs had to have acadamies in the past. It basically allowed clubs to take advantage of that resource if they wished. I don't think you can blame MLS for there not being acadamies or for not mandating it. These clubs are only just now finding ways to operate somewhere near the red/black line where would they have gotten the money to start the acadamies, much less run them.

You mentioned salaries in an earlier post, as did the author of the article. The facts are that the players union agreed to the terms of the bargaining agreement. They are at least somewhat responsible for their current lot in life. You, nor the author, can place all the blame on the league.

And I don't think your salary cap arguement holds much water when comparing the NFL to MLS. Pretty much apples and oranges IMO.

[shooter6065]

And I don't think your salary cap arguement holds much water when comparing the NFL to MLS. Pretty much apples and oranges IMO.

Not really. Again look at the NFL. NFL teams HAVE to cut veteran, non-superstars and sign young players out of college. It is the only way to pay for the high-priced QB's, left tackles, receivers, etc.

Same thing with MLS.......how else are they going to pay Beckham, Blanco, Gallardo and other expensive foreign talent and get under the cap? By getting rid of the middle class players. Look at how many players the Galaxy have had to unload to keep Beckham and Donovan.

Look at the Galaxy roster now. It is Beckham, Donovan and a bunch of has beens and never-will-be players. The middle class players had to go. And if they can find a foreign player cheaper so be it.

In MLS, these players can simply move overseas. In the NFL, those players are done.