So there's more to it than population? Hmm. Like, the quality of the existing league and player development and coaching development matter too? Uh oh. What if it turns out that those things are like, I dunno, not easy to improve massively, especially when your competition already a huge head start and spends way more money on it?
Didn't Belgium revamp their youth development about 10 years ago that produced most of their current squad? If Belgium can do it we can do it in half the time /murica
Interestingly I recently met with some people in US Soccer and proposed they not try to solve player development at a national level, but instead focus on getting really good where the known hot spots are. Southern California, Dallas, etc. Countries like Belgium and Switzerland are showing you can build really good teams even in relatively small populations, if you just focus on the things that matter.
That strikes me as likely to have a high ROI. Ultimately, the goal should be to cast as wide a net as possible. But, yeah, on the fairly limited resources we have now, it might well make sense to focus on the areas where we're already doing a lot of things right. And the spread of the regional developmental academies and MLS academies means that at least some of the kids outside the hot spots might get noticed and maybe have a chance to move to the hotspots. Interesting.
None of those teams discovered any of those players. Three of them were drafted and Yedlin, if he was discovered by anyone, it would be either Akron or Emerald City FC. The solution is more clubs. More clubs tapping into their communities to train players. Clubs that are professional. Not AYSO or pay to play club teams.
Would a club find it easier to get fan support if they were in a pro/rel system or if they were a minor league team not in a pro/rel system? The obvious and undebatable answer is within a pro/rel system.
You're right, it's not easy. We've spent 30+ years trying to do it. But I think we've turned the corner. Soccer is now in demand in the USA. It's marketable enough to fund the types of infrastructure projects required to improve youth development. Actually, I think this has already happened over the past eight years. Even as our #4 or #5 sport, soccer has a market in the USA bigger than powerhouses like Spain, England, or just about any other Western European country. That's key. I think it's just a matter of time, now. From what I've read (though I can't find the link), Gulati insinuates as much. Economically, we're past the point-of-no-return.
how is it not, spend more freaking money. More scouts, Development teams , and pay for better coaches (you get them from abroad)
It's already happened/happening. We just haven't seen the fruits of that labor yet because said fruits are still children.
We were reliant on Altidore because that's the way Klinsmann chose to go. He had other options and left them home. We took Ghana to overtime last Cup and a better team Belgium this time around. We're a few players as opposed to some 10 year project away from taking the next step. We need a couple of forwards. We need more team speed in the attack. We had that when we had Charlie Davies and an in prime Donovan. We need the coach to rotate his players. We need a creative midfield hub in one of the cm or flanking positions. We don't need tp match these teams player for player anymore than we needed to match Mexico player for player in order to have success. We do need the players who can implement our style of play effectively. We didn't quite have that this time around yet did well enough.
(1) Germany was spending a lot of money in 2000. And then redid everything because it wasn't working to their satisfaction. It took them a decade to get stuff mostly in place. (2) And where does the money come from, exactly? The USSF is already spending a lot more than it used to, as is MLS. But wanting to spend more money isn't the same as having more money to spend. It's a slow process.
Most of what you said makes sense. Kompany and Courtois are fantastic, Hazard may develop to be great. When I say midfield, I generally don't include wingers as "midfielders" eventhough they are. Its a flaw in my thinking. I referred to the central players. Transfer value is not indicative of actual talent. I've seen plenty of Vertonghen for Tottenham, its a good thing they have Lloris. Belgium have very good players, as do Ghana; but a particular cohesiveness is required to make a talented team turn into a WC juggernaut.
ummmm... really? Belgium would stomp Italy in the ground right now. Honestly, I think Belgium win it. Top to bottom, they're the most solid. Even Brazil and Germany have their weaknesses... Belgium don't have any weaknesses. They are world class at every position on the field.
your trying your hardest to be a debbie downer, but fact of the matter they already dish out more money and we are seeing very good progress at the youth levels
In your altogether unsubstantiated opinion. And it clearly is debatable because people with a lot of business savvy and soccer expertise founded a US league without pro-rel and have done exceedingly well with it against some pretty serious odds. So, not only is it debatable, the people who put their time and money at risk debated it and came to the opposite conclusion that you did.
More clubs is the solution. How you get their, either through pro/rel or through minor leagues is the question. More clubs would mean more academies, more academies reaching into the community training local talent. And on the aggregate we will create technical players. The problem with a minor league system is that it goes against how the sport of soccer is structured around the world. American soccer fans don't see soccer through the baseball or basketball lens. They see it through a global lens. And the narrative of soccer includes pro/rel. It doesn't include minor leagues. Pro/rel has worked in every country its been implemented. If there is some evidence that it wouldn't work in the U.S I haven't seen it. Not having a proper pro/rel pyramid is holding us back. The franchise system limits clubs. And then we wonder why we don't produce quality technical players. To everyone outside of the MLS bubble its obvious. It's especially obvious to foreigners who 1) are more knowledgable about soccer than Americans 2) See how the lack of a pro/rel system has prevented growth.
Yup. But "spend more money" is not a plan. It's a wish. USSF and MLS have to (1) make more money and (2) figure out how to spend it well. The FA and the EPL spend way more money than the US. I'm unimpressed with their return on investment. EDIT: And, again, this is not easy. If it were easy, it wouldn't have taken Germany a decade to revamp a youth development system that even before revamping the USSF could only dream of having in the next decade.
Belgium have not played an actual world class team. Next match they will face a team with couple of world class players.
US had 54% of the possession and competed for possession through the game. I was not all tacked on at the end. Belgium weren't camped on our side of the field. They were excellent against tired legs in converting possession into chances....
I'll ask again. All things being equal (same city, same team name etc). Would more fans support a club that was in the 2nd tier of a pro/rel pyramid or a minor league club not in a pro/rel pyramid? The answer is not difficult.