I own the fact that I thought the move back to MLS was a great opportunity for Bradley to learn how to be "the man." It was a bad take - one of many of mine. I'm not sure if I totally disagreed - I recall saying that picking a fight with MLS wasn't a good look and should be done behind closed doors. I'll take your word that after Bradley returned to MLS, there were 8 camps that he was not invited to. That's a pretty strong argument against my statement.
I feel some are confusing developmental aspirations with how to run a team as a going matter. I want the kids to try and push themselves. I want the veterans to be playing regularly, fit, and sharp. The two are not the same things. I want to push the team along, yes. But most of that work is done U-20 or earlier. Very few players (Dempsey comes to mind) actually grow leaps and bounds past that stage. But when I have to make a roster next week, you're either playing or not, fit or hurt, sharp or not. That in theory on paper a move could help you up your game is immaterial. What do the tape and numbers show? And you see where we are wandering into this same discussion over and over of whether the tape matters, or some other proxy that may be a snob hang up. In terms of demonstrable reality and history, Jozy was good while at AZ, went in the tank at Sunderland and Hull, revived at TFC. Bradley had a good run in the Serie A, but had been told he was surplus, and TFC is where he landed. Dempsey had done well by Fulham, struggled in a Pulisic like utility role for Spurs, revived when he came back here. No, the stories of how they screwed themselves coming home are de-contextualized rubbish. I don't remember any of these players prospering when they made their upward jump. To the contrary, Jozy after scoring 30 goals in a season, couldn't trap a ball. Somewhat reminiscent of the Forgotten Man Bobby Wood, who moved up the food chain, disappeared, and became useless to both sets of teams (club and country). Despite being our leading 2018 scorer at the Nats, which should by any objective measure make him at least bench fodder the next year. But not if you can't kick a ball straight because you had to move from B.2 to B.1 and then became unpreferred. Bradley has fallen off but that happened Year 3 of this second stint in MLS. You know, when a guy who has been playing since 2004 (age 17) hit age 29. Clint Dempsey didn't fall off for either club or country until 2018, his last season at age 35. Suggestions otherwise are contrary to the statistical and essentially a re-packaging of the unproven broad brush snob argument that MLS makes you suck. This is not an anti-ambition screed. The ideal age group, to me, for players to be ambitious, is Pulisic/Weah's age group. You get high quality training. That probably in fact improves the product relative to going to UNC or playing for Atlanta's B team. If at 20 or so they lose interest, get the heck out and find someone who wants to start you. But there is a long history of Landon/ McBride/ Beasley type players heading to Europe at that age, correcting into a long term home, and being national leaders. And I don't think there are impacts to the NT from that ambition other than this current trend of anti-Weah and -Sargent silliness where some elite young players are being punished as kids for playing time. When the group usually more intensely affected by sitting is the older player. I would like for more players to be at PSG or Dortmund at that age, but IT IS WHAT IT IS. If you want to change that do even better on the development end of it. But the implication that we're struggling because we aren't on those teams at prime ages is at best "chicken and egg" (is it really that many of those teams stamp approval on developmental work already done, grab up pre-existing talent as opposed to leverage the older player up that much going forward?), and at worst indifference to tangible outcomes. With prime age players the concern should move from perfectionism to keeping them sharp and fit so that their usual level of NT performance continues to occur. To me it is absurd to roll the dice on club on some theory it will benefit NT trickledown when the history is a lot of those "grab for the brass ring" efforts result in Lost Seasons followed by a correction back where they belong. I mean, at some point in making JK arguments are we going to discuss how his team turned out? His best team was based heavily on prime age Germans who he proved unable to replace when his midfield and defense aged out. In club terms, he "bought himself a team" and then couldn't rebuild by his own devices. And you want me to turn the team over to his principles, he who couldn't make lightning strike twice? The worst thing he did was get this club snobbery in the national blood stream. When you come from Germany it means something different to be playing in the German leagues. You have a great national league we should aspire to, but also one biased in favor of your home players. Germans tend to prosper by the German league. But before applying those principles to the US look at European biases and roster approaches, and the tangible outcomes to US players, before just prodding them on. To me the best coaching attitude holds the players accountable to how they show up from club, which implicitly demands them to make serious choices. But it conversely punishes over-ambitious choices as well which can hurt the team by having you show up rusty, sloppy, and unfit. BOTH MATTER. The coach's job is not a temp agency hiring his players out to clubs. It wouldn't hurt if he was connected to facilitate his players, but his job is to judge what shows up for the NT. I think it's insane to laud a coach for encouraging decisions that I think were actually in practice detrimental to the team. Jozy couldn't kick a darned ball, and Dempsey for one rare period looked a little rusty and not 100% fit. That is what his real job is to judge. And he punished it precisely backwards, rewarding foolishness and punishing wise calibration.
Here is one that people took offense to in another thread. MLS has been a net negative for the USMNT to date. There for 4 main things that have driven the USMNT to higher levels or will be a driver going forward. The original NASL and especially the Cosmos 1994 World Cup (wouldnt have happened without the NASL) Fox Soccer Channel Christian Pulsic
I guess you will need to open your mind a bit to understand. Once you do that, I would be more than happy to explain.
NASL brought name brands to the US. We didn't qualify a NT for a World Cup while it was here. That's basically "no cap pro/rel" etc. rhetoric as opposed to, what did the NT do while that league was around? Answer for you: zippola. The US only made 1990 because Mexico was DQed, taking 2nd when 2 teams advanced, behind CR with no Mexico involved. The US made 1994 as host. NASL was dead 1984. The tournament was awarded 1988. It was controversial to award the tournament to a country without a national league and I believe we basically told them we would work on it, ie, MLS. You have that precisely backwards. Our best effort so far was 2002 which to me was peak pro-America MLS, as the league solidified and more players came home. That creates a huge national player pool to draw upon, who can stay in the sport because of the reliable and decent salaries. By the latter half of the decade you had the Beckham Exception and the shift to marquee name brand foreign players. IMO what happened since then is we have tilted roster rules from a hard cap towards DPs and international slots, and diluted the value of our own league to domestic players. Our level of player has improved but there is no longer a guaranteed domestic perch to land on, and signing abroad is always a risk. People can say that our players should rise to the occasion, but as a matter of practicality as opposed to psychological theory, fewer Americans are available for selection and they are less a focus of the league. And it is harder for domestic kids to find playing time than before when it was mostly a dedicated American league. And this shift is actually being done to sell tickets and make the snob crowd happy. The demonstrable history -- as opposed to paper theory -- supports having a domestic league that favors our players and is not obsessed with name brands and big salaries. The two periods in recent US pro history when we didn't qualify were the 1950-NASL period, which ended with big salary foreigners, and then this most recent round, as that mania caught back hold. The period in between of NT success is MLS with harder cap rules and fewer international slots.
That is a lot of words that only make sense if all your players are playing in the same league for roughly the same caliber of team.
You have the positive dynamic precisely backwards. Like Dempsey taking Fulham to the Europa League final past Juve, I feel better about a US player who can take a team to where you want to get all excited about. That is what Adams has helped do at RBL. He starts, they are in UEFACL. As opposed to them stamping approval on him, he has helped them achieve. He's already on a top 3 B.1 team and that's arguably a better league. Arguing he needs to go to a leading EPL team is basically a snob/money play as opposed to a career move. He's already there, and, better, he earned their way up the ladder. If he can do that why do I need to wait upon ManCity to pronounce him worthy? He in fact needs to assess, like Miazga, Mixx, Pulisic, Wood, or Steffen, whether this supposed "upward" move in fact coincides with continued constant playing time, or is a risk of that in exchange for money, against a background of a team that may feel no particular regard for the American player, and has checkbook in hand at the slightest bobble. And as I hinted with my earlier post, there seems to be a chicken and egg philosophical misfire by the proponents of your approach. About whether for the matured player, ManCity calling improves you, or is instead a recognition of achieved success already. I think the strongest argument for big club development is, well, at development ages. By your 20s they are cherrypicking you for how you already look.
MLS was a negative in 1998, no doubt. The best players left Europe to play in the league that was bush-league at best (training on high school fields). Wynalda and Ramos were injured in MLS games that were frequently hack-fests and not fit during the WC. Sampson and the players on that team will admit that it was a negative but they felt it important. Most have been well taken care of by USSF, MLS, and their partners in later years. Donovan playing in MLS was a negative in 2006 and he admits as much. He made sure to go on loan to Everton prior to 2010 for the very reason that MLS didn't sharpen him enough. Most of the 2010 team was non-MLS, at least the starters. The two biggest prior debacles have an MLS component (not the whole reason but it's existence didn't help and did hurt). Many would point to Bradley, Altidore, Bedoya, and the mass exodus from Europe to MLS as a factor in the biggest debacle in 2017. MLS as an idea should be a positive. But MLS with its closed structure and salary cap and roster rules has been a net negative. It is probably getting towards neutral now and might be a net positive soon. For example, until recently most elite youth players went to college; they are at least not doing that now. But that is mostly the DA and Bundesliga and Pulsic with MLS following along. The Japanese are the counter example to anyone thinking MLS has done all it could to help by just being. They started their J-League about the same time and had many of the same problems. But they made changes to the J-League and opened their pyramid and are far beyond the USA at the senior level.
Oh c'mon dude, he abandoned freewheeling ball in his first cycle for 3 DMs. Jones, Bradley, and Beckerman. IMO he saw we couldn't outskill teams and looked at what we had in abundance, DMs. To preempt this stupid affiliation catfight: One of them was already domestic and the other two were by the end of next cycle, but that also coincided with advanced age. For his second cycle, his slapped together V.2 cynical team aged out one by one, and he had no clue how to reconstitute. Some of that may have reflected the next generation being not the greatest, but he also made no effort to do what he did first cycle, which was adapt a formation to the pool. If we started out 433 attacking and became a bunker team he didn't know what the bunker team should become. I tend to defend people who say there was no Bradley replacement lined up. He was fading which hurt our success but there was no obvious new idea. Saief and Lletget wouldn't manifest til end of cycle and the kids til this cycle. But that doesn't explain the other two. I mean, by mid cycle, they are gone, off the team. You have no excuses. Who is your next guy. And with O-30 players it's your fault if there is no next guy lined up. Anyone looking at a roster and ages sees that coming, just like with Bradley/ Nagbe/ Omar, etc. this time. Am I going to set myself up for a fall, or am I going to plan for a 4 year horizon. We have become so obsessed with winning at the expense of long term team building we can barely think past next month. But that doesn't explain not sitting down with a pool roster and figuring out some style to suit the players he did have. They may not be what you wish, but a smart coach looking at the list doesn't sledgehammer them into the same holes as before, but rather builds the new team to suit. It's odd because what saved 2014 was adjusting and he just couldn't do it for 2018. Which to me reflects he was a mediocre coach who could only take Germany to semis at home, fired by Bayern, out of work since.
The players on the 1990 to 1998 teams were kids when the league was around. Kids in NY/NJ grew up watching world class players. There were big name players all of the league. The sport grew remarkably while it was around and was a springboard to our national team getting over the hump. Do you think we make the WC in 1990 or win the bid for the 1994 WC if there was no NASL? They didnt tell them we would work on a league, they agreed to have one in place by 1994, which they didnt.
I am sorry, but EPL is a better league with better talents. I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise. You might not like EPL, and that's fine. But you have to admit the talents and quality is there.
He finds the champions league boring because the same teams are in it every year. We are snobs because we think the liverpool/barca, ajax/tottenham, and city/tottenham series were more entertaining and the players are much more talented than his Houston Dynamos.
Build an argument. I am not sure I have ever seen you do that. Borrowing from an another poster (not a complete list), MLS has had a hand 1998, 2006, and 2018. What positives have they brought the USMNT to offset that?
Just a guess but with a name like juvechelsea I think there is a pretty good chance that he doesn't dislike the Premier league. Of course chelsea could refer to his daughter or someone else who is a big fan of juventus.
To defend JK a bit, all those guys suck except for Jones, who played 90 whenever available. Just like in the lead up to 2010, almost all the best alternatives were hurt in the exact sequence required to result in Bradley becoming undroppable.
MLS stood behind the bulk of the qualifying streak, 1998-2014. That’s 5 tournaments (leaving out the 2 before). Most teams would kill for that which is your blind spot. 2018 was the only whiff since 1986. The other 2 we made but didn’t do well. What you do is turn 2 tournaments most teams die for into some sort of argument the league failed the team. France had a whiff tournament and no one went after Ligue 1. They won in 1998 and then 2018. Is Ligue 1 great again? Bizarre. People keep blaming MLS when we don’t do well but the logical connections are spurious. When I want to say MLS is hurting us I give a league wide explanation— cap and roster rules promoting use of foreign players shrinking our national player pool. The arguments back are like “blame MLS for Wynalda” narrow or basically broad brush snobbery that doesn’t draw lines between league policies and outcomes. The 1998 team qualified first and then imploded over how Sampson handled Harkes-Wynalda. The people writing about it didn’t blame MLS. The 2006 team just got old and Arena paid for his workarounds eg Lewis at LB and one-tournament-too-manys eg Reyna. 2018 is actually the one where I think an anti-MLS argument can be made but it is that the pro snob push to liberalize payrolls and rosters has de-emphasized the American player. Ironically it is now that you can question MLS helping USSF because there are teams starting 8 or 9 foreign players and no one domestic you’d even care about. That can tangibly shown to undercut USMNT players and leave YNT sitting on benches.
Where is the causation of your silly statement that "MLS stood behind the bulk of our qualifying streak"? Are you one of those people that think soccer started in this country in 1996. You attribute 1998 to MLS? MLS undermined that team. The league as a whole was pretty horrible at that point. Of the 16 players on that team in MLS, only thee of them hadnt played abroad... Pope, Heyduk, and Maisonneuve. That team had a solid run in the copa america in 1995 when the team was made up of players abroad. Are you not aware that after 1994, there was significant interest in US players. Here is where the other 13 were before unfortunately coming back to MLS. Balboa - Leon Dooley - Schalke Sommer - QPR McBride - Wolfsburg Agoos - Wehen Preki - Portsmouth Jones - Vasca da Gama/Coventry Ramos - Tigres/Real Betis Lalas - Padova Burns - Viborg Moore - Nurenburg Wynalda - Bochum Wegerle - Coventry
I feel like people who think MLS has been hurtful for the national team don't likely remember the country with no professional outdoor league and the complete absence of a soccer landscape that existed at that time. Good players would maybe get connected to some Euro team through personal connections if they were lucky or mostly just see no future in the game. Maybe a handful of special cases had both the talent and the connections to make a go of thinking soccer could be a career. Mostly, players were just forgotten for over a decade. A strong professional league and the general growth of the game in the US are the only things that will ever eventually breed the type of soccer culture and infrastructure needed to produce a truly top level national team. Sometimes you have to do things yourself and put in the hard work yourself. Europe doesn't give a shit about soccer in the US. We cannot just farm out a handful of teenagers to Euro clubs with no internal infrastructure or professional league of our own and expect that they'll somehow train 'em all up to make a great national team. I'm on board that most of our best players will make it to Europe and the national team should reflect that. Mostly the guys who are peak age or higher and still in MLS as it is today are never going to be great national team players with the odd exception for a guy like Donovan. MLS stars making waves in the international game will always be rare until the level improves significantly. But, just abandoning the very real and very long work of developing a solid professional infrastructure (something the NASL never even attempted to do) and just assuming all will be well if we just let the kids play sandlot and hope for the Euro scouts to actually want these players, is absurd. Even with all the problems, we are far far better off as far as the development of soccer in general and the national team specifically with MLS. Wanting to see MLS change and improve sounds imminently logical. Wanting to throw out the baby with the bathwater just sounds like a temper tantrum.
The NASL love is just bizarre honestly. I loved the NASL because it was all we had, but don't just watch old clips of packed stadiums when the Cosmos would roll into another big city with Pele to show off. Go find the many, many more clips of teams of mostly unknowns with an aging star or two to share between them playing in front of 10,000 or less in a 60,000 seat football stadium on astroturf with football lines painted on them. That's what NASL was more often.
The biggest cup for MLS was 2002. The additions of Mastoeni, Wolff, Mathis, Beasley and Donovan could be argued as a solid contribution. I'd argue that all of them could have been could have found a decent club abroad. LD could have easily found somewhere besides MLS that he would be happy in. I am sure there were plenty of clubs in Mexico that would have been interested. The MLS players that joined the team in 2006 were pretty lackluster outside of Dempsey, Convey, and Johnson. All of them were members of youth programs had would have interest. Not sure that CHing, Conrad, Olsen, and Albright did much to improve the team. There were only 4 MLS players on the 2010 team. After LD, the rest werent going to hop us... Bornstein, Buddle, and Findley???
I wouldn't want to go back to the pre-MLS days. Although I do have some fond memories of the CISL and indoor soccer in general.
You can frame the question as: MLS as currently operating or nothing. But there is another reality where USSF organized a league like everywhere else. That the player roster structure and labor relations were not set up like the NFL for NFL owners. Look at the most recent example of Yueill. He was a highly touted youth prospect who entered the MLS draft. He was selected by San Jose. He had no say in the matter and was not able to find a team he could fit in with or a coach he could work with. He then rotted in San Jose as that dumpster fire of a franchise couldn't figure out what to do with him. Everyone writes Yueill off as another overhyped youth player. For some reason SJ is lucky enough to get an actual coach. That coach immediately identifies Yueill and he is back in the USMNT picture with a possible sale to Europe coming. How many Yueill's have their been? Is Tommy Thompson a "failed youth player" or was he just at San Jose too long? How many guys have the San Jose's, New England's, even LA Galaxy's ruined or not developed? Maybe this year there is a change, we will see if current trends last past the Summer. But, sorry, MLS has not been a league that has developed anyone except by accident. The MLS Academies are a new development and seem to be a turning point. But that is very recent and I get the sense half the teams at least, were forced to do it and most are still not doing it well. Dempsey, Yedlin, Cameron, and others that have gone overseas had to fight to get out of MLS and it was their personal drive that made them what they are. Even then, the college to MLS route probably capped Dempsey's and Cameron's upside.
Yes, MLS is worse than any personal smoke dream fantasy league we could all concoct in our minds. Point taken.