Rob Stone: US Manager shortlist is Ramos, Tata Martino, Marsch, Berhalter, Friedel, Osorio & Vermes.

Re the Dynamo being cheap, you are right, but even cheap teams start foreigners, what about the ones with money? I did an analysis buried way earlier on this thread of the listed names in the Stone Tweet (plus Vanney and a few others) who were MLS coaches this year, and the amount of Americans they started. It was without fail in the 3-5 player range.

In other words, every single domestic coach in the Stone tweet was starting 6-8 foreign players on opening day, which I think is what I used as the comparison. The Dynamo would be on the high end but even Vermes was starting at least 6.

My point is that takes a league of 500+ players and you start shrinking it down to maybe 300 or so domestics total, then maybe 100 start, and then x number of that 100 are worth our time. The more foreign players you allow the smaller the proportion and number of domestics available to consider.

I know in theory this makes the players better as they have to compete with that quality. But it's a balancing act because at some point what may happen in reality is a very cosmopolitan league starts to result in fewer and fewer domestic starters benefitting from the increased level of training and competition. Those who survive are excellent. But the pool in general is rendered more shallow.

I mean, if you want a couple useful thought exercises, go on something like wikipedia where you can reach each MLS club wiki, and then go through the rosters -- each one -- and put together a list you would like to call up, based on domestics. You will start to see what I am saying about how some teams offer very little to the NT and that sometimes it feels like most of the teams are starting foreign players at that position you need to fill. You are looking at a salty ocean while thirsting for something to drink.

Ditto if you pretend you are England's coach and start going down the EPL rosters looking for players. It's like, oh, I like him, but he sits the bench at Big Club FC. Well, I need someone who gets playing time. OK, Crystal Palace has a guy. Or ironically maybe some guy second division. Considering it's their own big money league it's kind of amusing. It has cycled back around for them to better quality, but it should tell you something that internationally for a while there we had caught up to them as a national team.

 

Walker - Starts for Man City
Kane - Starts for Tottenham
Alli - Starts for Tottenham
Henderson - Starts for Liverpool
Stones - Starts for Man City
Sterling - Starts for Man City
Lingard - 33 Appearances for Manchester United last season
Trippier - 35 apps for Tottenham last season
Young - 38 Appearances for Manchester United last season

Almost their entire starting 11 are key players on Champions League teams in England.

The other two:

Pickford - Starts for Everton
Maguire - Starts for Leicester

Two Europa League place teams

The bench is full of more players from Manchester United, Tottenham, Everton, and Liverpool.

What are you talking about? You are completely, objectively wrong, in your assertion that Southgate only has guys riding the bench at big clubs or playing for relegation fodder to chose from.

 

Sampaoli would be a home run hire, which is why I'm sure it won't happen.

 

I'd like to point out the fallacy of the England argument by pointing out that through the old years when the English League was much more heavily filled with English players, they had worse World Cups than they just had with a much more competitive and international league. If anything, England is an example of the national team getting better after an influx of better competition from abroad.

 

That's why they have the pile of world cup trophies since 1966.

1990 US group England 4th
1994 US 16 England not quali
1998 US group England 16
-----
2002 US quarters England quarters
2006 US group England quarters
2010 US 16 England 16
2014 US 16 England group
-----
2018 US not quali England 4th

For about a decade and a half there you wouldn't have argued they were EVEN BETTER THAN US. So much for the EPL making them better. Now that the pendulum swings, oh, it must be the EPL.

Try instead that for a change they had a burst through the youth system like we did before 2002. Or now. Ironically the youth system due to FIFA rules would be sheltered from competition through age 18.

 

They tanked during the entire period from 1966 through to the modern era. They played with a heavily English top league all through the 70s and 80s with nothing to show in global competition. Take out the 1966 cup (over 40 years ago) and none of the success or failure really of England can be related to their league not being English enough. During their most English years of the 70s and 80s, they were absolutely no better than now.

I may have stated it poorly, but the argument is more that they tried and failed with the we need more English Players playing in England strategy. Yet, for years, it gets trotted out as the obvious cure to what ails them. And yes, the current team does start to tip it back in a positive direction for a more international approach. But, more to the point, the idea that having huge percentage of domestic players in your top domestic league has never shown to be a winning situation for England. And, they have a couple decades of trying it that way to show.

Where's the proof that they did so well with more English players dominating their league? Or does it all just hang on one good tournament in the 60s?

 

Well, I suppose if MLS could hold a candle to the EPL in terms of talent and quality of play, this would be a good argument.

It can't, it won't any time soon, and American players have taken notice taken themselves overseas to find opportunities.

 

You'd think for someone throwing around "objective" you might offer names and numbers.

GK Jordan Pickford Everton (8th) SMALL
GK Jack Butland Stoke City (19th, relegated) SMALL
GK Nick Pope Burnley (7th) SMALL

So the keepers were from teams no better than 7th, no big clubs, one relegated keeper.

DF Kyle Walker Manchester City (1st, 32 lge app)
DF Danny Rose Tottenham Hotspur (3rd, 9) BENCH
DF John Stones Manchester City (1st, 16) BENCH
DF Harry Maguire Leicester City (9th, 38) SMALL
DF Kieran Trippier Tottenham Hotspur (3rd, 21) BENCH
DF Gary Cahill Chelsea (5th, 24)
DF Phil Jones Manchester United (2nd, 23) BENCH
DF Fabian Delph Man City (1st, 21) BENCH
DF Trent Alexander-Arnold Liverpool (4th, 18) BENCH

Two big club starters, some big club bench guys, and a starter on a midtable team. Again, not a bunch of big club starters.

MF Eric Dier Tottenham Hotspur (3rd, 32)
MF Jesse Lingard Manchester United (2nd, 20) BENCH
MF Jordan Henderson Liverpool (4th, 25)
MF Raheem Sterling Manchester City (1st, 29)
MF Dele Alli Tottenham Hotspur (3rd, 34)
MF Ruben Loftus-Cheek Chelsea (5th, 21) BENCH

FW Harry Kane Tottenham Hotspur (3rd, 35)
FW Jamie Vardy Leicester City (9th, 37)
FW Danny Welbeck Arsenal (6th, 12) BENCH
FW Marcus Rashford Manchester United (2nd, 17) BENCH

This sounds more like what you might be arguing about, but it's just part of the team, and still there are only 4 guys on these lines starting 30+ games for a big club. Several of the names pop out as "oh, yeah, him, of course," except they are only in reality playing half of league. This kind of gets at my point that what EPL does to the NT is make you choose sometimes between small club starters and big club subs.

What it demonstrably DOES NOT do is generate a team of big club 30+ game starters.

 

Absolutely. Just like the better South American countries, our best best is to have our top players playing in Europe and supplement with the domestics unless the day comes when our domestic league can compete with the best.

But, I'm dropping this now because it is way off topic. I just get a bit soap boxy about this notion of get the foreigners out and the national team will improve since I see no evidence of it anywhere, including England where it seems a particularly strongly held belief in some circles.

 

It's kind of a cherry pick argument presented this way. Does Steffen count? Is it better to go Steffen's way or Sargent's? OK, want to complicate it more, how about Hamid's? Miazga's? Parker's? Or, to be fair, Palmer Brown's?

The common factor to me on many of the people who prosper on our team is simple playing time. That does verge on circularly saying in demand players are also in demand internationally, but it's closer to explaining reality than saying yanks abroad outperform MLS. The reality there is people just start sweeping under rug the ones getting to 23, 25, and still trying to start a career. Hyndman. Zelalem. The ones who were supposed to be Weah before Weah.

Amnesia seems to hit when it comes to the players who went abroad who didn't turn out. Maybe it's just the basic maxim that of any U20 team some of them come out awesome, some journeymen, and some flush from pro soccer entirely. At least some of that is whether you rot somewhere or instead play. I think it can be beneficial to be in a youth academy abroad. But I think as they transition to pro ball at least initially it switches to, do you see the field or not. The ones sitting start to fall back behind. If you do finagle your way into playing at a big club, great, but we can't premise the whole pool on the assumption they all turn out Pulisic.

 

"Get the foreigners out" is ad absurdum. If I were making a suggestion I'd say bump it down to the 5 man rule we use for US Open Cup. In any event there is a lot of "in between" zero and eight. My point is reduce the limit somewhat where we have to turn our attention somewhat more back to the domestic player. Not build a wall. Just reconfigure slightly like we care about domestic players and "get" what effect the rules are starting to have on the pool.

I instead expect to see pressure where teams will soon be fielding even more than 8. As it is we're making excuses for LAFC fielding ineligible players.

I see where the idea in the heads of many Europhiles is imitate Europe. Surely you know some of those countries have limits themselves. And are now bringing in rules like Financial Fair Play just when y'all are saying, "liberate the caps." It's like you're imitating some stereotype of Europe without considering how the rules, for example, impact national team selection and pool depth.

Anyhow, if you were trying to get this on track, my point was that even MLS coaches being considered for the NT coach job aren't playing all that many Americans. Which in terms of hiring gets at which coaches are concerned about domestic players and get which ones need to be included.

 

Almost all those players individually make more than Houston's entire payroll. That's why they play in the Premier League.

And the Premier League is probably the best example of the benefit of foreign players. 69 English players started the first round of the Premier League last season, 23 of them went to Russia.

 

Almost all those players make more than the entire Houston payroll.

And only 69 English players started in round one of the Premier League last season. 23 went to Russia.

 

Oops! Can't edit using the Android app.

 

The sad thing about this type of news coverage is, there is literally no rumors, no opininated tabloids, nothing. You google “U.S. Soccer” and all you get are articles from days or weeks ago.

You come to this thread and see the latests posts talk about England and who they brought to the World Cup. You check-in and check-out of the thread in a nanosecond and try again tomorrow hoping there’s something different.

 

I think payroll is an unrelated question for MLS. Houston a few years back still wasn't great on payroll but we started more domestics. We were spending international slots on several bench players. We still don't pay people and yet we use the international slots more productively. So we start more internationals. That is not any guarantee of success as merely being international does not equal good. 2017 we found a few interesting players, led by Elis, and made the semis. 2018 we swang and missed a lot and fell back below the red line. In both years we were maxed out on internationals and had cap to spend. At some point it comes down to scouting and choice as opposed to just international and money.

I also think that payroll tends to leave out acquisition costs. Houston is spending a few million more to acquire the players on the payroll, in the form of loans and transfers. I think it creates a false passivity among our fans, or those judging us, to say, well, they don't spend. Maybe it's that we spent $3 million on loans and transfers, instead of salary, that might have been better spent on salary for free transfers.

It being my theory that we are paying a lot of money to get people in who are then only worth low or mid six figure salaries on the market. The disparity between acquisition cost and salary being perhaps the most telling thing. That maybe if we instead spent $7 million on payroll (as opposed to $4 million on payroll but $3 million to acquire the people on the payroll( and didn't play the "buying" game maybe it comes out better. Elis is the one player in a few years worth anything and when he came here he had a moderate salary and was fresh off a bad year in Monterrey. There are too many like that that didn't turn out.

I'd be curious how England would do if they limited foreign players even slightly more and that bumped some of the players on the team into starting roles at their clubs. You're like, how efficient, but to me I'm thinking I am looking at England right now at full speed and then when it falls back down some it's no better than US backed by MLS, as for the past 4 tournaments. To me if only 70 domestic players in your whole league start, then you're either onto the bench people, or looking at small clubs or lower divisions. And your success would probably vary wildly since you're dependent on a shallow pool.

This is part of my theory on the US is where there used to be a nearly endless pool of domestic pros playing your position, who could take your job, now maybe 1/2 of the starters in the league at your position aren't even eligible for our jersey. Maybe some of that 1/2 kind of stink. If we don't have someone for a specific spot then the list of potential replacements in MLS is not actually that lengthy, and some may begin as hold your nose quality. It then becomes very important how well you develop and whether the talent level is varying over time.

I also think it matters that Bradenton is done and we basically handed it to MLS academies backstopped by players signing abroad, or random collegians who pan out. So right at the time when MLS has fewer and fewer domestic starting jobs we're relying on MLS academies to produce first team players and by extension the guts of the national team.

 

Bad moment to dis the English system.

They made semis, we didn't even qualify.

 

Mexico will get their quinto partido before we hire a Latin American coach.

 

https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2018/08/15/porter-i-should-be-in-the-mix-for-usmnt-job-after-vermes/

Porter says he should be in the mix after Vermes....

"If you’re going American, Peter Vermes, for me, he is the guy that deserves the shot,” Porter says. “I believe that. That guy deserves to carry the torch of our national team. Peter Vermes, in my opinion, based on what he’s done in our league, he’s proven it as an American coach. If you don’t go with Peter Vermes, I think, based on what I’ve proven, I’m in the mix with another two or three guys who deserve consideration and I’d be open to talking.”

1. this makes me think Vermes is going to be next USMNT coach....

2. there's so much wrong with this, imo......the choice shouldnt be about "deserves"....so much to do with national teams has always been about deserves...i.e. who deserves a callup, who deserves certain jobs....

just pick whoever will do the best regardless of resume....i couldnt care less bout who deserves it....

the culture of who "deserves" it...will not produce the best results.

 

I think my point stated most clearly is that when I looked at the Stone Tweet short list coaches, I didn't find any of them who were USA die hards on their rosters. I found coaches who at minimum were half and half starters. Some of the people that are being thrown around were starting as few as 3 Americans.

That can be taken in a few different directions, well, maybe they know where the talent is, and are starting the right people. But even that would be an indirect comment on the pool. So my points are (a) none of these coaches is draped in a US flag with their lineups and (b) the implications of their lineup habits have to impact the national team pool, or at least reflect something about it.

Maybe I need to moderate slightly the England comments at present, in this uptick for them, but I remember some world cups with second division players or them dredging the smaller clubs for the end of their roster. I don't think erring on the side of big money cosmopolitanism, to the point you could field a team without a domestic player, necessarily helps your national team. Like I said, I imagine it elevates the few who emerge, but constrains the list to pick from, and sends some of your depth players to their club benches. You might still do ok by it, but I can't believe that's optimal. I start asking whether they might be better off if some of those bench players were in MLS, or France, or Italy, or anywhere, playing every week.

 

It's going to be a made man and Vermes has seniority over Berhalter.

Imagine this as an organization. Bruce is still il Padrino. Gregg and Pete are the caporegime --think Tessio and Clemenza.

Steve is just a consigliere, good enough to be a placeholder for as long as needed.

 

The more one thinks about it, it is likely an American will be hired as head coach.
Klinsmann was an aberration: he lived in California, married an American, spoke English fairly well, and was a pretty good con man.
Sarachan stands a chance, especially if his teams do well in the friendlies, though they are hardly any way to judge his ability. He's already had an extension until the end of December. We'll struggle with him at the helm, but we might do so with any coach.

 

Far too much young talent coming up to struggle in Concacaf. Only an Arena apologist coach would struggle. We need a real coach.

 

Real coach? As in someone very competent? Nah apparently we need an American coach... And I should be on the shortlist too, because, like Porter, I'm also an American who's not coaching.

 

Make.it.stop. Ha!

I guess we have to laugh, it's 'only' sports