Anybody else think it's interesting that the MLS have been the best players on the field so far in the WC? I'm sure many don't want to admit it, but the strides MLS has helped this great country take in securing some competitive soccer have been outstanding!
yeah... thing is, most of those guys are not getting time in the MLS... cept Feddy and Jozy... Zizzo has been our 4rd best player, and he is in college I see your point on young American talent, etc... but their is something more to it when Rogers doesnt get much burn in Columbus... same as Sturgis while in LA... etc...
For all the abuse MLS takes on these boards from fans who do not consider it worthy of their support because it's not the EPL/it doesn't have major foreign stars/it doesn't have the New York Cosmos (pick one), a few things cannot be denied. Pre-MLS A national team player pool of about 20, youth teams usually consisting of one or two phenoms and a bunch of grinders Post-MLS A national team player pool so deep we can send a C team to the Copa America and not be embarassed (yeah, three losses is three losses, but anyone who watched the matches knows the U.S. played really good soccer), and youth teams which are becoming increasingly dominant on the world scene. MLS may not be a top-tier league when compared to EPL, La Liga, Serie A, or the Bundesliga, but it's giving American kids somewhere to play on a Division One level--it is much better than riding pine for some European club, no matter what the Eurosnobs will tell you. MLS has absolutely contributed to the U-20s showing in this World Cup--directly and indirectly. Directly in the way it gives Americans who would not get a chance in Europe to play and train (Rogers may not be playing much for C-bus, but he's getting a lot more hands-on attention than he would in Europe) and indirectly in that high school and college kids who might otherwise switch to kicking field goals have something to aspire to. Bottom line: it's time for American soccer fans to become fans of American soccer. MLS deserves your support. Just do it.
SM - good post. Watching New Zealand in this U20 tourney is like watching the US in the late 80's/early 90's. They run, run, grind it out, play hard defense, but technical are lacking. Boy, we've come a long way. Boy, we've got a long way to go.
I think, though I don't know for sure, that many of these guys have also come out of the college system. For as much flack as the college system seems to take, it has produced some good players (though it seems to be mostly UCLA).
Although I was traumatized by the post-crash loss of my favorite posting--a pretty lengthy defense of the 1930 U.S. World Cup squad written in 2002--I've managed a handful (but barely a handful) of posts since then. I'm amazed anyone noticed my absence, to tell the truth.
MLS can get you to the U-20 WC.....people have to move to Europe though to keep getting better..... Beasley and Feilhaber are great examples MLS is the reason why we are getting so much better at soccer....I love MLS and wish players like Adu, Szetlea, Altidore, Seitz, Sturgis, and Rogers played more. People underestimate youth players way to much....take Sigi Schmid for example. Szetela is gunna go to Europe and he can't get a sniff for a struggling Crew team. Same with Adu, the guy is a withdrawn forward, CAM type....yet they play him as a LW. The guy needs the ball at his feet 24/7 if RSL want him to be a success. Our U-20 WC team could beat any MLS team, at least thats what i think
Feilhaber Bocanegra Conrad Bornstein Hejduk Cobi Jones Joe Max Moore Brad Freidal Matt Reis and with Zizzo and Beltran both contributing now. That an impressive list.
It is interesting how players like Adu, Rogers, Szetlea, Seitz can struggle in the MlS and dominate in the U20 WC
This is a fair point, but I think most of the criticism is directed more at the structure of college soccer--short schedules, draconian restrictions on off-season club play, free substitution rules, useless coaches in many (but not all) programs, etc.--than the quality of the players produced.
college soccer kept USA soccer alive from 1980-1996 so I take all of the bad mouthing with a grain of salt.
Sorry, you're wrong about Sturgis. He played 9 of the 10 MLS games he was with LA for, and started 8 of those. The only one he did not play in was the season opener, and he was hurt. He actually has the 3rd most minutes played for LA STILL, even though LA has played two more games since he was traded.
I've been away awhile, so maybe I'm missing something. I don't buy into this theory that going to Europe is required. With the exception of goalkeepers, you will be hard pressed to name any American player whose ability improved to any significant degree after going to Europe. Seriously...did Heyduk or Mathis or Donovan or Kirovski get any better by sitting on the bench for European clubs? Has Beasley really improved? Convey? Do people really think Gooch is all that? In the 1998, 2002 and 2006 World Cups, MLS-based players were the bright lights of the U.S. team--with few exceptions (Friedel and Sanneh in 2002, for instance) the European based players were disappointments. Obviously, if a player can go to a top European team and start with regularity, it is a good move--although, again, as Beasley and Convey (and Eddie Lewis and a bunch of others) have shown, it is not a guarantee of improvement. However, merely going overseas for the sake of going overseas is a waste of time. Players are better off staying in MLS.
Seeing how the NASL did not fold until 1984, I'd have to disagree as far as your timeline. Also, although it is pretty much a carnival act today, indoor soccer (the MISL in particular) was instrumental in keeping soccer on the landscape. As was the early USL and the APSL. College soccer was, and remains, its own worst enemy.
It is, but it's also shows the gaps in our player scouting, particularly today. No reason why a kid like Zizzo should be playing college ball. I can't imagine he did not show promise as a 17 or 18 year old. He should have been on an MLS club by now. MLS scouts just missed him.
Well in the MLS they're playing against older players. The U20 WC is their age group. And going to Europe is good as they can get better coaching. They can always come back to MLS if they're not playing.
You'd be pretty hard-pressed to argue that Convey didn't improve from his time in Europe. Beasley even showed significant improvements in his touch, vision, and finishing when he was getting regular time with PSV. He never "regressed" (not your words, but those of many posters over on YA). His confidence sunk when he was benched at PSV and has only now begun to recover. I like where your heart's at, but the right situation in Europe can do wonders for a player. Feilhaber has improved dramatically since he's been at Hamburg, and now really just needs quality first-team minutes.
The main reason that players are better off going overseas is $$$, and they're well aware of it. In terms of skills-building, I think it really comes from within - if a player is looking to improve themselves relentlessly, they can work on their technique (maybe less so tactics) in MLS just as much; if they're not hungry enough, they probably won't get the playing time or attention in Europe. For confidence players, like a Justin Mapp, who's to say that lots of encouragement to take chances and run at mediocre defenders here is worse for his game or his US chances than going to Europe and becoming more hesitant, if more tactically aware? But for every example like that, there's a Bocanegra who is learning a lot about his positioning, when he can afford to leave his feet, etc. from taking on top forwards, and I don't think would get the same lessons against opponents in MLS because he wouldn't get punished as severely for mistakes. Of course, he's needed to get opportunities to play, and not all Yanks in Europe manage that, especially young ones. I like to see top players get to good opportunities in Europe if they have the drive to take them on; if they are just going to get paid but not so focused on getting better, while I can't criticize them personally for the decision, I don't find it as helpful to the US Nats. This is part of why I'm skeptical of Yanks in Scandinavia - it's more $, and it's a good level of competition, but it's also not as much of a proving ground IMO. Overall, MLS is of course critical to our success in recent years, both in depth and in improved quality at the top, but it's just as silly to discount the value of playing in Europe as it is to discount the relevance of MLS.