Add to: (seeing you’re a Philly fan, which I’ll butcher) If I could pick the Bethlehem Steel team GK Freese/Bendik RB Mbaizo/Allen CB ?? CB Elliott/McKenzie/Trusty LB Real M6 Creavalle M8 ??? 10 Fontana RW ??? FW Santos LW Ngalina So, the U21 team would then be a mix of the current USL team and the best academy players.
Again, you're just not paying attention. Carleton has been playing for ATL2. Pogba and Kratz aren't going to gain much from playing in USL at this point in their careers. MLS regulars in 2000-2007 are now playing in USL, and before that NASL. MLS USL teams are already giving minutes to "fringe" p[layers, and players returning from injury (though not as much as in years past). They are also using them as a proving ground for their academy kids to see if they are ready for the next step in their career. Not to mention that Atlanta United 2 has been around what 3 seasons? Rome is not built in a day. The level of p[lay in MLS has been steadily rising/improving across the board for the past 10 years. We've already seen players that were starting in MLS just 5-6n years ago be pushed to USL (Austin Berry, Michael Lahoud, Antoinne Hoppenotte, Leo Fernandez, Danny Cruz, Jack McBean, Chandler Hoffman, Josh Yaro, Amobi Okugo, Callum Mallace, Eric Avila, Daigo Kobayashi, Aaron Maund, Dominic Oduro, Omar Salgado, Sammy Ochoa, Marc Burch, etc. This notion that in addition to having a USL team, MLS teams also need to field U23 teams and create an U23 reserve league is absurd. The ROI on an U23 team/league just is not worth it, there wouldn't even be a return on that investment. How many players come up through RBNY and Portland's PDL teams? Those players are better served playing in the USL Championship and League One.
Dude.....Freeze is already starting for Steel. McKenzie is starting for the Union. Fontana gets games with Steel when he doesn't make the gameday 18, and he's an 8 not a 10. Sergio Santos is 25, he's not going to gain much playing in USL at this point, he played a few games for the Steel while recovering from his injuries earlier in the season. Ngalina has been playing with Steel almost the entire season. Creavalle isn't going to gain to much playing in USL, plus he'll be taking playing time away from a promising Academy player. Elliot already starts in MLS. Mbaizo has been injured most of this season. He's been getting games with Steel when he's been healthy. Real has gotten games with the Steel as well. Trusty could use some games in USL to get his confidence back, he started every game in MLS until midseason. Bendik was a starting GK in MLS for the past 6-7 seasons. He doesn't need time in USL. Most MLS teams have 20 players that they use for games throughout the season. The other 10 players on the roster are usually rookies, academy players and journeyman who can do a job when called upon if/when an injury crisis occurs. People are acting like the next USMNT star is just buried on an MLS bench waiting for their opportunity. That's just not the case in today's MLS. Chris Wondolowski is an exception from a completely different era of MLS. Not to mention that USL games are usually the same day as MLS games....kind of makes it difficult to use unused players from he MLS subs bench in USL. This is the frustrating thing. The majority of MLS fans know that MLS is not close to the best leagues in the world. It is improving at a rapid rate, and it is our countries top soccer league (whether you like it or not). Many of the critics always point to how MLS was 10 years ago and make the assumption that it is still that way today. 2010 MLS might as well be 1950's NFL at this point. 2019 MLS is light years past 2010 MLS.
you’re arguing in the air at this point. when teams improve, their academies have been around longer, players grow out of the academies, depth increases, cap increases, and so forth. The ideal scenario in years down the road , as I’ve said, even those USL slots will become more competitive. Therefore, that age bracket of 16-20 will need a place to play. More so, NCAA still has a function. PDL and NPSL have a function. Hell, some MLS teams have a PDL and NPSL team, so the point is already on the way. I’m asking for a more coherent version of that level for these guys to move up the ladder. This really isn’t asking for the moon here.
I think your idea is good but the realities and the NCAA are in the way. You see it with PDL now. A player can't even play with other pros or semi-pros and maintain NCAA eligibility. Even if that player is an amateur. Of course, this doesn't seem to work for kids from England; only this country... At some point in the pyramid of prospects, the chance a kid makes it are slim and those kids always want to remain college eligible. The easiest solution, rather than creating an entire U23 MLS league, would be to get the NCAA to move to a Fall-Spring schedule and play by FIFA rules. If we could just get 20-40 Division I schools to then take it seriously (and close to that number do now probably), you would have a vibrant amateur U23 development league.
This would go a long way to filling in a major development gap. At this point, it's much easier said than done. Most colleges/Universities are balking at the idea, citing academics before athletics, etc. Which is ironic considering the condensed nature of the current NCAA Soccer season means that most players are taking the minimum number of credits in the fall, and still missing classes due to travel. Then in the spring semester they have to take more classes to make up for the lost time. In reality playing one game on the weekend in the fall, and one on the weekend in the spring would actually give student athletes more practice/training time, and a better academic schedule.....then again what does this former college athlete know?
I definitely don’t disagree entirely ...but I do think it will be more challenging to get the NCAA to play by the rules that we want them to play by. Therefore, I’d like to see us be proactive and bypass that problem if necessary. For instance, I’m not a Columbus fan, (where it’d be easier for me to talk about Atlanta), but I know Columbus is a college town. In this regard, MLS u23 basically creates a program that says hey, we’ll pay for your college tuition, books, and give you a living stipend (or some percentage of that). So, the kid from Ohio who wants to attend Ohio State University, can do so, but instead of playing for Ohio State (who I don’t think even have a soccer program) can do so, but they’re doing so under the umbrella of MLS/USSF/USL. If the ideal is for every MLS team to eventually put out a u23 team, and maybe just start out with the ones in the PDL/NPSL, we could really improve the overall quality of play in that age bracket. Now, some will say, that’s what the USL is for. Okay, at this point in the league, there is that. But, if MLS and USL continue to progress, as they should and as they appear to be doing so. Those opportunities are going to dry up for a guy like a Will Vint or Will Reilly, who are on that cusp of not yet quite good enough for USL but too good for their u18 academy team. More so, it also hopefully adds a way to catch some guys who would have fallen through the cracks in their grade school years. For instance, let’s say I have a 16 year old kid who was an amazing soccer player, but we live 2 hours away from the closest academy (Greenville, SC). I can tell you this much, as a parent, I’m not letting my 16 year old go to boarding school 2 hours away from me and knowing they’re traveling all over the US. Not ever going to happen. Now, when they turn 18, they can do whatever the hell they want. Therefore, let’s say my 16 year old plays on their local club team, misses the opportunity to showcase their skills at a DA, but they’re still extremely talented but not quite recognized enough to get a shot in USL. Well, that u21/u23 league is going to be right up their alley when they graduate high school.In this case, by creating a more improved u21/u23 league, we are opening up the opportunity for those Clint Dempsey types to not get missed in the narrow minded vision of DA > USL > MLS is the ONLY way for a kid to make it.
Another potential benefit of the u21/23 league... stagger the dates of games different than MLS games. Now, I argue that USL should do as such, but I do understand where they want to try and get those games too at prime times to increase their profit margins. Whereas, a u21 team could play their games on Tuesday/Thursdays... a guy like, Andrew Carleton (just as an example), could drop down, play on Tuesday/Thursday for a full 90 with the u21’s and then come up on the bench even for the senior team on Saturday, and maybe play 20 minutes. This way, this player is getting some actual game time, and yet still would be available for selection for the seniors. Plus, with ESPN+ and other streaming devices providing TV services for these lower games, as a fan, I can count on regular soccer throughout the week.
I think this is a matter of survivorship bias. We had a lot of youth players in Europe who didn't make it, and most just disappeared from the pool. At the time Bobby Wood was making his breakthrough, we also had high hopes for Joe Gyau (now finally getting first team minutes in MLS after injuries), Marc Pelosi (hasn't played since 2017 due to injuries), Lynden Gooch (finally a regular starter but in League One), Andrew Wooten (career German lower league player and now MLS squad player), Cody Cropper (now his MLS club's third keeper), Rubio Rubin (now in Ascenso MX), Jerome Kiesewetter (now in the USL), Tony Taylor (now in the USL and a fringe Panama NT player), Mario Rodriguez (now a German lower league journeyman), Kris Scott (in English non-league football since 2015), and Junior Flores (without a club for the past year).
Lots of good discussion in here and much of these points are valid. One I have not seen discussed though is maybe Bradenton also went way downhill under certain coaches? https://www.socceramerica.com/publi...orth-on-why-the-usa-needs-its-u-17-resid.html
More evidence that things have drastically changed for the better from ten years ago. Today’s announced U17 roster has more pro experience than any US U17 team before it – by far. 5 times as many minutes as the 2017 team had. pic.twitter.com/lQk8oyeV8r— natfan9.bsky.social (@NatFan9) October 10, 2019
I am not at all sure that is a "good" thing. It is a different thing but different does not mean good. It might be good but it has a near equal chance of being bad. The pressure of professional play has as much chance of ruining a kid as it has of helping him. It all depends on the quality of management and coaching and that is historically VERY bad in the US system.
You need UCL players to win the WC. The biggest factor as to which players will be UCL players is that they get pro minutes before 18. We are just now turning out such players in decent numbers. That is the macro view. Any individual story will be unique.
I think Chuck92 tweeted that there are a sizable number of guys getting pro minutes that didn't even make the team.
I'm sorry, but weren't you the guy saying that we need to give kids a better environment than high school and NCAA?
Yes. But I am not at all convinced that any MLS involvement is good for the kids. I believe that the MLS is a major retarding factor in the development of youth players. The MLS develops foreign players pretty well and it improves foreign national teams but it does not, in my opinion, help the US side at all. The MLS develops bad habits and poor play that takes years to work out of players if it can be cured at all. The few good players that played much/most of their careers in the MLS would have been so much better if they had actually worked to play in a good league. Even the second tier European leagues are better for actual development than the MLS so having the MLS involved at all in he development of youth players is practically an assurance that the development, if any happens at all, will produce a vastly inferior player to what that player could become with proper development. As I said the proposed system is different but may not really be better. But this discussion is really moot because the NCAA has too much power to willingly relinquish any of it.
Again, MLS has focused on improving development in the last ten years. Things aren't what they were back when Adu and Shea were developing. At least for some MLS teams. Teams like FCD, RBNY and the Union have proven to have vertical integration from academy to team with development happening incrementally. The introduction of USL teams has provided a crucial intermediate step for players to move forward as pros. Teams like Seattle, RSL and LA are following on those footsteps. In the end, if we want good development MLS has to improve. NCAA is just not a factor anymore. You are correct in that they can't be reasoned with. Just holding the kids in local clubs until they are 18 isn't scalable. The primary motor for development has to be MLS. They are the only ones that can invest enough money in development and hope to get it back thus creating a virtuous circle where they reinvest. It's my belief that some clubs have taken those steps and we are seeing fruit. I also recognize there is more work to be done.
I am not at all convinced that "development" with the MLS involved is positive development no matter what the "teams" say is happening. I do not really see any improvement in the play of US national players that have "developed" through any of the MLS clubs. The refereeing and play in the MLS is so poor that any "development" gets negated by bad habits that said bad refereeing and poor play allows to flourish. The MLS is a good environment for other CONCACAF teams but the CONCACAF level of play is all it is good for. In no way are MLS developed players made ready for playing on the world stage and, unless the MLS actually makes real development possible and drastically improves the quality of refereeing, players coming through the MLS will never be better than average or below average CONCACAF level players. BTW: It will not surprise me much if we are beaten or tied by either Cuba or Canada or both. But we have a good chance to win if we keep the MLS players on the bench. MLS players fielded by a bad MLS coach is an inferior product and any failure would be less than a surprise.
I always thought this was the definitive answer. To be honest, we punched above our weight for much of that 2002-2012(2014) high water mark. A lot of our players developed together in Bradenton and/or used the USMNT to gain transfers abroad. The result was our pool had played together so much more compared to other national teams. Additionally, we really didn't have any major injuries to the core of our pool. If you study any organization, whether sporting or business, high turnover always has a negative effect on performance. Obviously it can be mitigated with great talent being the replacement (see the Miami Heat when they assembled their roster), but what we saw from 2012-2018 was a player pool that had grown wider. At the same time, we didn't replace the highest performing players in our squad with newcomers, rather we continued to lean on our aging stars. Arguably the only two national mainstays in that lost generation that cemented their place were Deandre Yedlin and John Brooks. Both have had some pretty big injury problems. We continued to rely on an aging Tim Howard and Clint Dempsey. The trend continues with an aging Michael Bradley and Jozy Altidore. But what we're seeing now is that ugly transition period from Bradenton to MLS clubs being much more focused on professional development. When combined with the partnership with the USL, as well as the league growing (each new team potentially opens up much more opportunities for the young American player) there are just more professional minutes available. It's possible some of it could be cultural, in which case you can look at other American sports for potential correlations. I'd imagine the financial recession of 2009 could have had a big impact for example. But that would be a pretty problematic approach for several reasons, so using Occam's Razor the solution you identified is probably correct. It was after all, called project 2010. We saw a lot of success leading up to and directly after 2010. Things just kinda fell apart for a minute after that.
I don't know if I agree with that statement. I think if we had made the World Cup it would have been like France in 1998 or Germany in 2006 all over again. Very disappointing.
lack of talent and poor identification of what talent was there the answer has been the same for five years why do people keep asking?
1 point and the lost generation is suddenly found. We had more than enough talent to qualify. I've said for the last two years and before the game that fresh legged vets would have murdered that T&T. Wood Pulisic Benny Bedoya Arriola Dax- Villafana-Reamm-Besler-Yedlin Guzan
It was one point. And we had all the other results go against us, including some bad calls. Arena made several key mistakes -- not playing rested players and playing an aggressive offensive formation on a sodden, puddle-filled field in Trinidad were two of them. But that said, there's no doubt that the players who should be the backbone of the team right now, players in the mid to late 20s ... there's not as much talent there as there are in the generations retiring and hopefully the upcoming. So you're not wrong, but that doesn't mean there was a decline in top end talent.
Something like this, there's no definitive answer. I think there's a bunch of things: Injuries Natural flow of talent, especially attacking -- we probably didn't "deserve" having Landon and Clint at the same time Our teams always punched above their weight, especially because of our Keepers -- when Howard got hurt in the Mexico qualifier, it was the end of an era Shift from centralized to decentralized development -- we no longer got the benefit of all these players have played together forever at Bradenton And so on. But I don't think we can underestimate how much our team relies on a small number of outliers. And if injuries hit or you have a few busts ... it shifts everything.