The way the Quakes played defense last night, I'm not sure I want Marcinkowski behind that. Vega's not great, but he wasn't the issue.
What about LAG? They have all those YNT keepers on the bench, and Bingham has been mediocre as the starter for a few seasons in a row. It's certainly possible that all our U-23 keepers are bad, but for them to not even get a chance to show that in MLS when there are multiple clear opportunities we can point to that they should get to points to a larger issue.
Well the US Open Cup was a good way to bring in those type of players and those games are gone. Chances may only come his career suicide (see Jesse Gonzalez) or injury ( take a bow Jimmy Maurer) but for FCD that means a 30 year old gets his first two league starts backed up by a U23 - but he’s a newly signed Brazilian. Other teams may have to play young US nationals if their starter goes down.
GK is a long term position, if a kid doesn’t break out by 23 that’s fine. They still have 12-15 years to emerge as a pro GK. We shouldn’t be that concerned. There’s a lot of positions to be concerned with young player minutes, GK is not one of them
I agree except for the fact that it's much less likely for a keeper to move to Europe later on in his career. If a guy breaks out at 27 that's great and all but his ceiling is still MLS keeper.
I was curious how our full strength team compares to other countries', so I played around on Transfermarkt. Based on U23 player values, I made these conclusions comparing us to the current top 15 teams (which is also what I'd consider the top 15 youth countries). Curious if you guys agree. England and France are 1 and 2. That doesn't need discussion. Aside from that, it's interesting. For Transfermarkt values, we have Pulisic as a Tier 1 player, 4 more guys above $10m, and the rest of the lineup rounds out with some $3-7m players. I was curious how that relates to other teams, so: Germany: Players 1-5 is relatively similar. Their depth is where they get us. Italy: Pulisic is the only one really comparable. They have a whole lineup of $20m+ guys. Spain: Nearly identical to Italy. Portugal: Like an Italy and Spain lite. Netherlands: Still more depth. Belgium: Really more our speed. Pulisic is better than Tielemans, but after that it's about as close as it gets in a comparison. Switzerland: We're marginally better. Croatia: We're the same if you remove Pulisic, which is funny for obvious reasons. Brazil: The most depth of everyone. Our #2 is their #18, but our #1 is theirs, too! Argentina: Similar 1-5, their depth falls off much more gradually. Uruguay: They're pretty much us if we had one more $50m guy. Colombia: We're better in every way. Mexico: We win at every valuation. Elite: England, France Better in Every Way: Spain, Italy, Brazil Same Top 5, More Depth: Portugal, Argentina, Netherlands, Germany One more guy: Uruguay Pretty equivalent: Belgium Worse than us: Switzerland, Croatia, Colombia, Mexico So I put us at around tied for 11th, which might seem low to people who think we're entering a golden age but in my mind that's fantastic. The 10 above us are the 10 you'd guess, and no one else. It's right where we want to be. If there's a day where we're mentioned as the 11th team with those 10, that alone would let me die happy. While I think that we are starting to produce better talents, I also think it's revealing that our top 5 are better than other teams with similar 6-25s. We've gotten lucky on a having more jackpots than our depth would imply. I hope that people down the line realize that it's progress if we don't produce another Pulisic for 15 years but we do produce twice as many McKennie's and Adams's. We're really lucky to have Pulisic. Compared to the rest of our pool, no matter how much better its gotten, he's still a statistical anomaly.
Good work, but I'll just quibble that Pulisic is not a statistical anomaly. Reyna is on pace to equal or surpass his value. So it would be two anomalies. And incidentally, maybe that would quickly catapult us to the top 10, on par w/ the Uruguayans. In their company & Belgium's, it's nothing to sneeze at. There is more theoretical room for rapid improvement on other players, to join a Portugal & Netherlands, given the academy system is burgeoning. A lot of values could soon spike w/ the influx of talented teens. A Ledezma, Llanez, Harper, Otasowie, etc. breaks thru overseas. Araujo, Paredes, Bassett, Pepi, etc.; at home. Then we're really in business & outside contenders.
One of the big changes that we should see this decade is the increased average valuation of American youth prospects. A decade ago, we were lucky to see most of our top u17 prospects even become professional soccer players. Even the 97-99’s didn’t have much structure in place and most of them flopped as prospects. Now we have a much more stable system and are exporting more youth to Europe who are actually doing well at their clubs. I think realistically over the next 1-2 decades at the rate we’re improving that we could see us jump up into the top 8. I don’t ever see us improving to becoming better at developing players than England, France, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Germany, and Portugal. The reason for this is non EU restrictions which give those big European countries major advantages over us. The non EU rules were put in place to handicap countries like USA, Argentina, and Brazil from sending so many players over and it’s why the major European powers will always dominate. To catch up with Brazil we would need an entire cultural shift away from basketball and football which will never happen
The reality is our best case (for the USMNT) is we emulate a Germany/Holland. Strong domestic league that features domestic talent that is heavily scouted and often bought. Because you are absolutely right, Europe is mainly closed to a lot of Americans hoping to emulate a McKennie/Pulisic paths. It's obviously not impossible: see- Tyler Adams, Zac Steffen (there and back again!), etc. But it's a pathway that requires a higher degree of luck for the American without an EU passport. What I fear is that MLS is becoming more of a lite-EPL. Foreign talent dominates certain positions (mainly creative/attacking roles, but definitely some outside backs as well) with that foreign talent being bought, but with little domestic talent being considered seriously. Obviously the English have more incentive staying domestically than the US player who aspires to the biggest career imaginable, but it's entirely possible that the MLS to Europe pathway for our guys who spend their early careers (18-24) playing for MLS never entirely opens up. ^^^^The above is why I think Adams career is maybe the most important out of any of our guys that are over there. Talents like Reyna and Pulisic now are less likely to be missed by European clubs at a young age, but for the national team to truly thrive, the bulk wave of what we produce must have their margin for error lowered (i.e.: we need European clubs to seriously buy young MLS talent). It's also why I'm heavily invested in Brenden Aaronson's eventual European transfer. Soccer isn't really a sport where I think any one nation will ever truly dominate just because of it's nature. It's a team sport, with a lot of variables. I would say in tournament/high pressure matches it's one where a less talented team can win on their day moreso than pretty much any other sport besides baseball. And in baseball they play seven games serious, which tilts the scales back in the more talented teams favor. So the best thing you hope for is a model that consistently cranks out top 10-20 teams. Which is what it looks like our model might be capable of.... Time, as always, will tell.
That's not a good measure of quality now let alone the future. We're talking next generations, & European sides are always going to have a built-in advantage by measurements of participants in ucl since the competition is taking place in their countries. The top domestic sides of leagues equal to or worse than MLS are involved. That moves up players from those countries on this list, just like it would if MLS were allowed a couple teams in the comp. Then there's the aforementioned non EU/WP impediments preventing more MLS'ers from transferring to UCL teams. We just saw it w/ Cannon, & he's even a regular int'l. Which can adversely impact actual quality from players not continuing development & staying motivated. But it's also why we'd naturally have more diamonds in the rough for the nat'l team than European nations.
I hear you — we have some structural disadvantages to showing up higher on this list. Just thought it is helpful to take a step back and look at how many players some countries have, in particular the non-european nations. I would’ve liked to see this cut in a way that shows non-domestic league players by country, actually. Where I disagree with you is that I do think it’s a string measure for current high end quality if you splice it by non-domestic league players. Would you agree that need to get to a spot where we have 15+ or so guys playing UCL football in order to be consistent world contenders? In terms of future — I think there are many paths to being at 15 or so in the next decade. Probably more likely is that we have 10-12 heading into the 2026 qualifiers which would be quite a huge development.
I don't know what the set # is. Theoretically the more the better, but we aren't AS dependent upon that as European nations. We just need a significant portion of our roster there, indicating they are performing at a high level individually. When Uruguay made the semis in '10, over half the roster wasn't at that level. Then they built a rep in Europe & their opportunities increased. So the first go around we'd have a lower quotient before we earned respect. Probably a good mixture: let's say 40% ucl regular, 40% top 5 starter, 20% domestic standout. It might also be that at some point MLS takes off the training wheels (salary cap, single entity, catchment areas, etc.) and evolves to a level just below the top 4 + joins a world football league. So players would get the requisite competition there & not be that hampered by the impediments. Our market and money makes us not as potentially dependent upon other countries unlike the likes of Uruguay, Colombia, Chile, or even the Netherlands. Don't know what the future will hold.
It is very tricky basing the future on staying the same as the past. Once upon a time American soccer was paying the highest salaries and drawing a lot of the best players from around the world to the NASl. It wasn't sustainable and the league folded. MLS was started on a go slow growth model but grow it has. If the US economy outgrows Europe decisively for the next two decades, the 2026 WC re-invigorates MLS and just the continual growth both MLS and the leagues and teams beneath continue things could change dramatically. I'm not predicting it just saying it's one among many possibilities.
MLS, in my opinion, is really the crux here. It's great that we have Pulisic, Reyna, McKennie, and Dest going over to Europe and succeeding but a good portion of their success is because of the passports of 3/4. Reyna of course would be nowhere near his value, Dest is hard to count since he is in no way developed by our system. And realistically, we need to develop more of the depth than the top end. That's what I got from the analysis, anyways. To catch up, MLS needs to be able to hold on to players until they're worth more, which really means better and older. If MLS could hold players for 1-2 more years and sell when they're worth $10-15m, this would instantly propel us upwards. That takes a delicate balancing of an improving level for players to still get better where new young players still have an opportunity to play. Unfortunately, I don't think the current domestic system allows for those two things to happen in tandem due to the structure of domestic soccer itself. In European leagues, players from top teams like Chelsea can go and develop on lower table teams like Sheffield United. There's mobility. In MLS, the mobility isn't between teams (since A. there's parity and B. they hate intraleague loans), but rather inside the teams themselves. What happens if a player plays a position where they're behind a player the front office shelled out millions for? It's no mystery that defensive players are more likely to get a chance in MLS simply because their competition is worse. That's one of my big issues with not having pro/rel in this country. I'm no truther, but it's a fact that European leagues have a sliding spectrum of levels of teams for players to be loaned to and find their level. In the US, there's 1 (fairly) equal level of MLS, another of USL, and a third of USLC. What if a player is a MLS/USL tweener? They're screwed? I still think there are major systemic changes that have to occur for Americans to really move up the tiers. I hate the ridiculous cap rules. If it was flat rather than loaded towards having better high-end players more youth players would succeed at attacking positions. I also want there to be a level for guys like Carleton in MLS rather than just to murder Philly 2. He's not going to play at Atlanta due to how much they spend, but the Atlanta's of the world (Chelsea, Bayern, Juve, Benfica, PSG) always have the option to loan their players to Portimonense and Nantes. Funny enough, I think the only thing that could really make these issues go away is if the domestic player pool gets better and deeper. That would make teams play more domestic players and try out new domestic players as well as put more money in the game. So it's kind of a catch 22.
I've spent an embarrassing amount of time doing transfermarkt searches myself, so I'm glad to see I'm not the only one. The future is definitely looking up for us, but one minor quibble I would add is that outside of your top 9 or so traditional powers, it's by no means clear that the top senior teams are also the top youth countries. Belgium, Croatia, switzerland, etc. have been at historic high points recently, but there will probably be several other teams that aren't in the top 15 right now, but have a golden generation that could still see them end up with more talent than the US. Norway, to pick just one example, isn't a traditional power, but they have 2 massive young talents in odegaard and haaland, and they're only ranked 44 in the world currently.
I looked at Norway. They have those two, but after them (and 1 more guy) they have pretty much no one. So it's definitely not a guarantee but it was just a theoretical exercise. And don't worry, I guarantee I've put more time into Transfermarkt activities. Before the existence of fbref.com that all these kids use today I made a full blown web scraper for Transfermarkt so I could write queries. So privileged, this generation.
It's a league that's 25 years old. And 15 years ago after almost folding 4 years prior, was begging Chivas USA and Salt Lake (w/ no stadium plan) to pay $5 million to join the league. KC was very close to moving to Tulsa and many were hoping for Rochester to get into MLS! Now, we have a team in Charlotte, NC paying a $300 million expansion fee to join the league. Argentina is basically becoming a feeder league for MLS. It's almost impossible to predict where MLS will be a decade from now. Especially, if the purse strings really open up the way the LA's, Toronto, Atlanta, Miami, and some of the newer owners really want.
@bshredder wrote an article about the qualifying roster. http://www.americansoccernow.com/ar...yer-pool-and-possible-olympic-qualifying-team
My thoughts. No way Ochoa deserves a place playing up a cycle. USSF really elevates this guy a lot. Take someone else instead. Freese should be in contention for the starting spot. The midfield is too workmanlike. Need more offensive ability in there. Michel over Saucedo. I've never been very impressed with Saucedo. He's not having much success over in Mexico, and didn't have that much in MLS either. Easy decision IMO.
It wasn't always entirely clear which players were left off because they wouldn't be released and which were left off because another player was preferred. I agree on the midfield, but I think most of the offensive guys were assumed to be unavailable.
I've been thinking about a potential qualifying team a lot, and I wrote in depth about it here: https://onssoccer.blogspot.com/2020/09/us-olympic-qualifying-deep-divethe.html I covered 55 USA eligible U23s and compared them against each other.
I don't think many of us consider JT Marcinkowki the best GK in the U23 pool but he's damn sure the most-experienced. If qualifying started tomorrow, he's probably be the starter by default. Here's a look at the 97-01s on MLS roster and how many pro minutes they have. JT Marcinkowski (97), San Jose MLS – 8 regular season games, 720 minutes USOC – 1 game, 90 minutes, USL – 41 USL games, 3600 minutes (3 college seasons) Justin vom Steeg (97), LA Galaxy USOC – 1 game, 90 minutes USL – 34 regular season games, 3060 minutes German 4th division – 13 games, 1170 minutes (1 college season) Jonathan Klinsmann (97), LA Galaxy Europa League – 1 game, 90 minutes Swiss Cup – 2 games, 121 minutes German 4th division – 24 games, 2160 minutes (2 college seasons) Mason Stajduhar (97), Orland USOC – 1 game, 90 minutes USL – 17 regular season games, 1530 minutes USL-1 – 3 regular season games, 270 minutes Drake Callender (97), Miami Yet to play (4 college seasons) Matt Freese (98), Philadelphia MLS – 6 games, 437 minutes USOC – 1 game, 120 minutes USL – 15 regular season games, 1305 minutes (2 college seasons) Kevin Silva (98), Toronto USL – 8 games, 720 minutes (2 college seasons) Eric Lopez (99), LA Galaxy 39 USL regular season games, 3490 minutes Brady Scott (99), Nashville USL – 2 regular season games, 180 minutes German 4th division – 29 games, 2610 minutes Trey Muse (99), Seattle USL - 24 regular season games – 2115 minutes (2 college seasons) Carlos Avilez (99), Dallas USL-1 – 27 regular season games, 2428 minutes Philip Ejimadu (99), LAFC USL-1 – 15 regular season games, 1350 minutes David Ochoa (01), Salt Lake USL – 21 regular season games, 2280 minutes; 4 playoff games, 390 minutes. John Pulskamp (01), Kansas City USL – 16 regular season games, 1440 minutes
This is a good debate. I would suggest that Ochoa and Pulskamp don’t belong in the U-23 pool. They are players for next cycle. I simply don’t know enough about Callender or Ejimadu to comment. Klinsmann, not a fan, at all. Good athlete for a keeper, but I’ve never liked his performances anywhere he’s played. Avilez isn’t bad, but I think we have better options. I would say the situation is similar for Brady and Muse. They are also young for the U-23 pool, so they have it a little harder than others. I just don’t know that Brady is the most talented, while with Muse I find him talented but inconsistent. I’ve always liked Silva going back to his U-17 days. I don’t know if he’s in real consideration for the qualifying roster, but I think he’s better than his reputation. Stajduhar is underrated IMO. Not sure he makes the roster either, but I think he’s pretty good. I find Lopez underrated but maybe even better than Stajduhar. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen Lopez not play well. I haven’t seen Vom Steeg play in a few years, but I thought he was the best of the ‘97 keepers when these guys were youth players. I agree about Marcinkowski. Probably not the most talented keeper, but should be reliable enough for qualifying. Freese I find to be the clear best keeper in the pool. He’s the starter IMO, if I’m picking the team. Two others I like are Abraham Romero of LAG II, and Justin Garces. Romero is provisionally cap tied to Mexico, but I think he’s been one of the best keepers in USL this year. Garces is the highest potential GK of the U-23 pool IMO, but he’s been playing for a bad UCLA team in recent seasons, and might suffer in perception because he’s playing college soccer. Viewing this semi-realistically, I’m okay with the qualifying mix as Marcinkowski, Freese, and Vom Steeg. No Klinsmann or Ochoa, and I’m okay with the mix, if one of those three I named isn’t there. I’d probably have it Freese as the 1, Marcinkowski as the 2, and Vom Steeg as the three, but that’s only how I see things.