2018-19 Development Academy

Sorry, didn't mean to be rude.

My experience is the quality of training is very high. The commitment level of the kids and coaches is very high. Much higher than pre DA. The kids improved individually and as a team faster as well. They want to win games (only 1 per week) but, it's not as important as the training and what the child's level will be at 15 or 16 and older. They develop the kids to be better players later as part of a planned program as opposed passing kids between different training methodologies each year.

The kids also are very motivated to play against the MLS/USL DA clubs as well. Which is kind of a bonus and pushes them even more. If you actually make an MLS DA team (not my kids experience) the training is incredible but, the commitment level is pretty crazy for an 11 year old. So it's really only for a kid that lives and breaths only soccer.

 

Thanks for sharing your experience.

This was my experience with U12 DA.

We played 29 games, losing once and drawing once, both to local teams. Season goal differential of 140 over those 29 games while keeping 20 clean sheets. We played 6 games against local competition and 23 games against "out of town" teams - 12 of those away that required at minimum of 3-5 hour drives either leaving at 5 in the morning or requiring an overnight stay. None of the games against out of town teams were competitive. For me, DA at U12 offered nothing that was better than playing in a local league, especially if you could qualify playing a year up in age.

I realize that experiences are probably different all across the board, and markets that are more concentrated (So Cal, Northeast) probably did not have the same experience as we did. The U12 DA season was not competitive enough and required far too much financial investment than it was worth - for both clubs and parents. Again, your mileage may vary - but this was my experience.

I agree with you on coaching and training, but there is no reason a club can not train 3-4 times per week and utilize quality coaches while not playing in a Federation run league. If these clubs are truly about development, not playing in DA at U12 shouldn't change anything other than a crazy travel schedule.

I agree completely with the decision to do away with U12 DA, but can understand that others might not agree. If I am completely honest, we are in an even worse situation at the U13 age group, but that has to do with more talent consolidation in our market, which basically turned one competitive U12 DA team into a non-competitive team.

In full transparency, I am in the Texas market and our U13 teams had great success at the U13 Showcase in Chicago - only losing 1 game I believe. Even with that good showing, the top teams in our division do not get enough competitive matches within the division.

 

I appreciate your perspective and can understand your frustration. It seems to work better in more concentrated areas. In Atlanta there's 7 DA programs including Atlanta United (all the games were competitive). So the travel is minimal. I just feel the P2P model without certain standards generally defaults to what's best for the clubs vs what's best for the kids. Not always but, that seems to be the rule. Not sure what the answer is for less concentrated areas but, I feel it works well in bigger cities so why throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

You bring up a couple of interesting points, but I would have some questions.

First, P2P is not going away, at least for Non-MLS clubs and I am not convinced it is nearly as big a problem as people think - that's up for debate.

Atlanta is an up and coming market that should produce good players in the future, especially with what Atlanta United is doing. However, I would argue that if you had 7 teams in your market and all those games were competitive, it was because the talent is still dispersed and has not come together at early ages.

Let's compare Atlanta to Dallas. DFW is a bigger metroplex that Atlanta is but there are only 3 DA clubs - the reason being that Houston, Austin and San Antonio are included in the division. I would bet that there is not much good soccer in Georgia outside of Atlanta. Two of these clubs are historically great clubs and FC Dallas has begun to do great things starting about 5 years ago. In the Dallas market, the talent tends to be on the top team in each age group of these 3 clubs by around 11 years old. There are still some good players with other clubs, but it is mostly concentrated on 3 teams. I do not know what is better, to have 7 competitive clubs where you get better games each weekend, or to train 4 days a week with the talent that is concentrated in 3 teams - I truly have not put much thought into this.

Dallas along with SoCal is typically thought of as the most talent laden areas of the country. I would have to think some of this has to do with the best training with the best at every session - but would listen to other opinions.

I guess my point is, why couldn't a market like Atlanta support a league with the same 7 teams that is run locally and not by the Federation? Clubs can still train 3-4 days per week - if they choose not to, they risk losing players to the clubs that will. In reality, all it would take would be someone to rent 1 field each weekend and find a referee assignor to assign refs.

 

Listening to the ExtraTime Radio from a few days ago with Inter Miami sporting director Paul McDonough, who was formerly with Atlanta when they started as the Director of Soccer Operations, and he said a bunch of important stuff:

"For us, we're gonna start the academy this summer. We really wanna focus, you know, 12s through 19s, all in South Florida. I don't think we'll go outside the market and bring kids in, it's really got to be about South Florida's team. We're picking a training ground site right now... we're gonna start the scouting process for the first team, and then hopefully a USL team..."

I like this franchise a ton already. It sounds like another stellar organization being added to the league.

 

So, based on the recent discussion, what do guys think of the Sounders Discovery Program?

https://www.soundersfc.com/academy/teams/sdp

No U12, no U13 and no U14 full DA teams.

Read the link for a description.

Players can still join the full academy and play up in age if they are good enough.

To me, it seems like the Sounders have a broader reach and impact in developing talent this way.

They seem to start narrowing and focusing in on players at the right time.

 

To be fair, I don’t know much about this program, so my opinion on it may be a little uninformed.

If it is as advertised, I find it a bit lazy from the Sounders. It sounds like they host a couple of trainings per week with a selected group of kids. Without matches and more than 2 trainings, it isn’t difficult to really lay the foundation of the way the Sounders want to play.

I understand their philosophy however. See my comments above about some markets and the challenges they have. My guess would be if they had a U12-U14 team they would get most of the talent in the area. That would make it difficult to get competitive matches.

Add to that the amount of travel that is needed in this region, the expense of that travel - and I think you can see why they arrived at the conclusion they did.

 

They do a lot of work with their partner programs both in and out of the area with coaching instruction etc.

They still take u14s to big tournaments where they usually show well. They almost always have one of the youngest teams at these tournaments.

I am not sure kids at that young an age need to be that hyper focused.

Kids at that age are also more up and down. The sounders get better scouting/evaluations of more players this way. They aren't pinned down to a certain group for a whole year.

If you havent already, l would suggest reading the series of articles put out by the Sounders on their development program which has been one of the best academies for a few years now and doesn't look to be slowing down any time soon.

 

Just a few things I observed from watching some of the DA games that were listed by US Soccer.

NE-Seattle:

I liked what I saw from Eliot Jones ('03) in this game. He has good fundamentals at the GK position, played well out of the back, and he has good size. He made one or two nice saves and he had one notable error, but I liked that he didn't really stand out. A lot of keepers at this level stand out for inconsistency or errors, he didn't do much of that. Best player the Revs academy, IMO.

Hiraku Fujiwara ('03) showed nice footwork in CM. Good decisions, got the ball to the right areas, and got himself out of trouble at times because of his ball control. I don't know about his game beyond that. Not much there, but he has elite footwork in CM, which makes him a noteworthy prospect in a bad academy. The DA website lists him with Japanese nationality, so maybe he's not eligible for the USA.

Morris Matthews ('03) played in a number of positions in this game. I had seen him play last year at the U-17 level (along with Jones). I was very unimpressed with Matthews last year. He was better here. Not great, but I see some ability. He's an excellent passer. He started out at CB, then went to RB, then defensive midfielder. I think he's probably best off as a defensive midfielder. His size is about average, and he's mobile enough. I don't like his defending that much, but its not awful. He'll make his mark with his passing.

Damien Rivera ('02) was active. He tried to make plays on the left wing. Not the most effective, but he wasn't completely ineffective, like most of his teammates were.

Ray Serrano ('02) was the best player in this game. Very good showing from him. I've said many times before that I thought he was a product of the talent in the Seattle academy, but he didn't have any of those players helping him here, and he was better than I've seen him play when any of those players did play. His football IQ was at least a grade higher from anyone else in this game. All the right decisions, a step or two earlier than everyone else making decisions, and he was pretty dynamic 1v1. If he shows more of this, he should be in the U-17 NT pool.

Daniel Leyva ('03) was very average. I just don't see much here that's going to play at the pro level. He has good footwork and is a decent passer, but I wouldn't say he's better than good in this category. This is going to need to be his calling card, and he's not that good at it. He has slightly above-average size, but it doesn't play well because he's very un-athletic. He can't make defensive plays he needs to in CM because of it. He has another year of eligibility at the U-17 level, so lets see how he does next season, but I'd hope they don't push him up to higher levels due to his pro contract. He's not good enough for higher levels.

Austin Brummett ('04) was not good, once again. I expected much better, given his goal-scoring record at lower levels, and how he's been pushed into this age-group against older players. He has another two years of eligibility left at this level, so lets see how he does the next two years, but I don't see a lot here in his game. He's another who is a bad athlete. He was playing CF in this game, but he's not a CF, unless there's significant physical development. I like his passing vision at the CF, but it doesn't always come off and I'm not sure its good for an attacking mid as opposed to good for a striker. He works hard and is good at keeping possession, but he's not very effective against U-17 players.

Angel Martinez ('05) showed very well. I'm grading on a curve here due to his age. He's playing up two age groups, and some of these players are a full three years older than him. I can see why he's been promoted to this age group. He's an outstanding passer from the CB position. He has good height for a 13 year old (maybe around 5'10), and his mobility isn't bad. That might be the part of his game to watch. He's tall for his age, and his mobility isn't much better than average. If he's 6'3 or 6'4 in five years, will his mobility be bad? His defense was below-average. He was too aggressive, and needed some work positionally, but I would expect that from a young player playing up a couple of years. It was more bad than standout bad. It may have been good, considering his age.

Eric Kinzner ('03) put in a quiet shift. He does that a lot. He's a very average player, and I don't see a lot here that I think makes him a great pro prospect, but he's effective at youth level and there's value in that. His game reminds me some of Mason Judge. Pretty average across the board, can get exposed occasionally by top-level talent, but will probably hold up and put in an average shift. The 03's aren't the best at the CB position, so he's a depth option.

Alex Villanueva ('02) was more impressive than what I had seen previously. There's some definite ability on the ball there. To use a comparison to the last Seattle U-17 team, he brings some of what Marlon Vargas brings. Takashi Sasaki ('04) came into the game later on, and again was pushing the play forward from the LB position. Sota Kitahara ('03) and Dominic Vegaalban ('03) both didn't show much as subs. I don't know what either are supposed to be particularly good at. They've both gotten some YNT call ups, but neither looks like a YNT-caliber player here.

I also watched the Sacramento Republic game against Richmond United. No Krenecki in this game.

Mario Penagos ('02) played half the game, but was the best performer in the match in only 45 minutes. He completely ran the game centrally. Composure on the ball is too good for youth football, good passing decisions, good passing vision. He has some defensive ability and isn't a bad athlete either. Scored a nice goal, as well. He might be the best '02 playing outside of an MLS academy. He was also playing up a year. His normal age group is the U-17's.

Roberto Hategan ('01) had a couple of goals. Not the hardest finishes, but they all count the same. I wasn't paying much attention to his game, so I might've missed a lot he did well, but he didn't exactly stand out. He seems to score goals at a decent rate, but I've not seen a lot he does well, besides that. I'm not as convinced he belongs in the best 23 for his YNT age group as some others are.

Travian Sousa ('01) makes plays from the LW, but his decision making lets him down. Good creativity, dribbling, athleticism, so if he can improve his decision making, he might be a prospect. Quincy Butler ('01) on the right wing had better decision making, but I don't find him as dynamic. Pretty good performance for him though, and he's one of the better players in the Sacramento academy. Euan Clark ('01) has a good combination of passing and size from the #6 position, but he can't cover enough ground defensively. He might be better suited playing as a CB. Kwabena Boateng ('01) has good athleticism and size at the CB position, but I don't see much else in his game. Not a bad prospect, but not particularly high level.

I didn't notice any prospects in the Richmond team, but I wasn't watching that closely.

 

https://www.soundersfc.com/post/201...2018-promising-performance-da-winter-showcase

You can read about how young the Sounders U17s were in this tournament.

 

Winter Showcase:

Kyle Linhares ('02) scored a hat-trick in PDA U-19's first game of the Winter Showcase. He is putting up one of the better seasons in the upper levels of the DA statistically. He has 6 goals in 4 goals at the U-17 level, but has played more at the U-19 level where he has 7 goals in 6 games. Scoring over a goal per game playing up a year is noteworthy. I've never seen this guy play, but certainly he deserves a call up to the US U-17's with these type of numbers. He's a forward, if that wasn't obvious from his numbers. Last season, he only had 7 goals in 15 games at the U-17 level, so he's certainly gotten a lot better.

Julian Araujo ('01) played his first three games of the season for the LA Galaxy U-19's after returning from U-20 WCQ. There seems to be a lot unknown about where he'll be playing next. He turns 18 on August 13, so he has a full season to go before he could sign in Europe. He might bide his time with LA Galaxy U-19's until the next USL season, and then play in the USL team until midseason. Thats what Alex Mendez or Ulysses Llanez had been doing this year. He could sign a pro contract with LAG, but I have to think it would need to be a first team contract, like Alvarez was given. I don't think an LAG II is getting one of the best prospects in the system signed.

Zackery Farnsworth ('02) has been playing all season with the Real Salt Lake U-19's. He has played in nine games. He's playing up a year. This is a player who has gotten called up to the U-17 NT earlier this cycle. I've seen him play a couple of times, and didn't think he looked like an obvious first team signing, but he seems to be highly rated at Real Salt Lake. If you are looking to see who might be the next HG signing at RSL, it might be this kid. @IHSSOC might know how he's been playing this season.

Matthew Hoppe ('01) scored a hat-trick against Michigan Wolves U-19. He now has 15 goals in 11 games. He's leading the U-19 level of the DA in goals and goals per game. He was on trial recently at Hamburg. He appears to be one of the top candidates to sign a pro deal soon from the U-19 level of the DA. He's not at a pro academy, but he might have options in Europe and I have to think there are teams in MLS that might try to sign him following this season.

There's the one year rule that'll apply (as long as MLS doesn't arbitrarily decide to waive it in this situation), but maybe one of the teams with a reserve team will sign him to a one year pro contract with their reserve team and then give him a first team contract the following season? That might be a way around the rules. He also should be called into the next U-18 NT camp.

Jacob Akanyirige ('01) and Gilbert Fuentes ('02) both appeared for the Earthquakes U-19's at the Winter Showcase. They are both on pro contracts, so next season they really shouldn't be playing at this level. What is the plan going to be for these two players? Will they be playing with the first team? Will they be playing with the second team?

San Jose has brought in a new coach who might want to use more young players. Under previous coaches, they might not see a professional game for another 2-3 years. It'll be interesting to see what the plan is for these two players next season. Casey Walls ('03) was also playing for the U-19's. He's mostly played for the U-19's this season, and thats playing up two years. He's a CB who has YNT call ups in his age group.

I believe Tyler Freeman ('03) is injured. He was not with either the U-17's or U-19's for SKC at the Winter Showcase. I've not seen his name listed at either level a few weeks recently.

I mentioned yesterday that Sacramento Republic has some good talent in their academy. One of the next prospects to emerge from their academy seems to be Rafael Jauregui ('04). He has played most of the season up an age group with the U-17's. He has 9 games (4 starts) and one goal, which he scored against Montreal at the Winter Showcase. He's listed as a midfielder. He also has been called up to his YNT age group a couple of times in the last year. Josemaria Barrera ('04) also has four games at the U-17 level this season. He was a sub in all four games.

Zach Booth ('04) got his debut for the RSL U-17's against Atlanta at the Winter Showcase. He's a regular in his YNT age group, and the brother of Taylor Booth. Its hard to find much info on RSL's academy. They only list the top two levels of their academy on the DA website. Most teams list every level with complete stats and rosters.

Owen Wolff ('04) appeared for the Crew U-17's at the Winter Showcase. He seems to be another son of former USMNT striker and current Crew Assistant (and maybe head coach in the coming weeks) Josh Wolff. He has played four games with the U-17's, starting all four games.

Sam Sarver ('03) on the same Crew U-17's has started to pick up his goal scoring. He scored four goals at the Winter Showcase. He now has 8 goals in 9 games. He's a speedy winger, so his whole game isn't just about goals. He might be playing very well, and the stats might not be showing it. That team doesn't have another player with more than three goals, so a lower goal total than expected might have a lot to do with the rest of the team. Sarver is one of the best players in the '03 year, and probably the best player in the Crew academy.

The other star in the Crew academy Elton Chifamba ('03) was playing with the U-19's at the Winter Showcase. He's a central midfielder whose read of the game is a little raw right now, but he's a good passer and has some box to box in his game along with covering a lot of ground. He plays the game a lot like Tyler Adams plays in CM.

 

Please don’t take what I said the wrong way. There is more than one way to skin a cat and no one can deny that Seattle has produced some really good talent.

That being said, I would have to think the reason Seattle doesn’t run teams U14 and younger is more about resources and cost than it is “there is a better way to do it.”

Does it seem to be working, yes, it does. Is it working better than some of the other Academies that produce really good talent? That’s up for debate. As he saying goes, if it ain’t broken....

 

It may be that Galaxy knows Araujo will leave but want his rights if he comes back. It’s really not a bad trade off. How many of these prospects won’t make it at the top levels of Europe? Most of them. If he comes back to the league either they get a top prospects defender, or how ever much TAM they can get. If he doesn’t come back and is a top level player in Europe, it’s another bargaining point for them to get more players into the academy. MLS rosters are still the Wild West, get your advantage where you can.

 

Does anyone have any insight into why the Red Bulls don't recruit very well against NYCFC and Philly? It seems like the only battles they win are against PDA, and the other two MLS teams have started to creep into New Jersey, especially south Jersey for Philly and right on the border of New York for NYCFC. You'd think their reputation for developing and selling players would do them more favors.

 

The Union’s school is one selling point. But it doesn’t seem like the Union is really bringing in too many players from the areas the two teams share in Bucks County and the more centrally located areas of South Jersey. Red Bull brought in a couple U13 keepers from Bucks County this season and a castoff defender from Burlington County, NJ. Current Union players from what I consider north jersey that come to mind are Julian Anderson, Tiron Shatku and Dylan Lacey.

 

It's worth noting that NYRB canned their academy director two weeks ago, so perhaps they are unhappy with the direction in which things have gone.

 

LAFC academy beat the galaxy academy U12 - U15 teams this weekend
https://www.lagalaxy.com/post/2018/...acks-la-galaxy-academy-face-tough-competition

 

Hearing @MLS is seriously considering a U19 league with all MLS Academies starting next season. If that’s the case all @MLS Academies would pull out of the U19 USSDA league and join the new league. Private academies would still likely play in USSDA League. This is only for U19s.

— Tony Marinaro (@TonyMarinaro) December 13, 2018

 

While I think that could be a good thing, there are still a ton of non-MLS clubs that are better than some of the MLS clubs at this level.

For me, this is a step in the right direction, by is going to cost the clubs a fortune on travel.

 

Definitely a step in the right direction. The MLS DA clubs should move to an all MLS DA and have teams at the U16, U17, U18 and U19 age groups with individual years. It will cost more money in travel but would ensure a higher level of competition for the MLS DA teams.

 

Is it a good idea? I don't think the costs of travel are the issue, I think it's the actual travel that's the issue for 19 year olds. Lots of players aren't going to play for an MLS team because they don't want to fly from New York to San Jose for a weekend game. I really don't like it.

 

As far as competition goes, yes it is a good thing.

At the same time, you are completely right - there are tons of potential pitfalls involved, especially when dealing with 17/18 year old kids.

 

I am not sure on that. The FCD U17s miss upwards of 20 days of school a year with Mexico trips, GA cup and other travel. Kids miss school all the time these days so don't think that will be a deciding factor. The shift may be to online school for these MLS DA kids that gives them more flexibility.

If the club is paying for the travel, I don't think many kids or their parents will balk at it.

 

We've got kids (RSL-AZ) missing 5-10 school days a year at the U12-13 level for travel to DA events (non-DA invitee) and Desert Conference games.

The club has been picking up the travel expenses to DA events. So not too many complaints from the parents. As long as the kids can handle the workload everything is good.