Steven Goff catches up with Arena prior to the Galaxy's visit to the White House on 5/15/12. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-house-visit/2012/05/14/gIQAKG40PU_blog.html Lots of interesting comments here. No surprise that Arena envisions himself in a new role at some point soon in helping to direct the league.
If you don't mind, I had to cut the quoting down a little, as it's a little too liberal. Gotta leave something for the click-through.
fine by me. (although, I had tried to primarily include only quotes from Arena as a transcription -- and not too much of Goff's writing/context/analysis.) ab$olutely.
For my part, I think his point about the Academy/pro transition is mostly right (there's too big a gap between the DA and the pro ranks, which is discouraging teams from signing Academy kids, and there should be something out there to help fill it). On the schedule, maybe he should take his own advice. He talks about how none of the 'suits' at HQ have ever run a team, but he's also never actually designed a league schedule, and my guess is he underestimate the amount of give-and-take there is.
Great interview. Great coach. I'm not an LA fan, but I respect "The Bruce" and we need more voices in the US Soccer picture. I hear many of the same refrains from the RSL brain trust. Another great Goff piece.
The US still has basically the same hole we've had for a long time. Internationally we've been pretty good at the younger ages. It's between 17-22 or so that we fall far, far behind. That is exactly what Arena is talking about. I think he's right, that the USL/PDL etc could make up some of it. Maybe an MLS u20-u21 league? Where does the reserve league fit into the equation? We've got to figure out a way to get those kids highly competitive games at that critical age.
Not really true. Internationally at the younger ages we've appeared to be better than we are because are success has been based on selecting early developers and we have had a huge pool of players. However at 17-22 when the maturation advantage evaperates, the lack of technical and tactical ability in our players and coaches is revealed. It would be certainly better to have something like a full-time U23 league than the more limited training allowed in college soccer, but the fact so many of our players play in college isn't as anywhere near as big of a problem as the poor training they get as young players.
I don't think we're disagreeing. And absolutely we're stronger physically than most nations, especially early and weaker technically. We're not bridging the gap for those players to get better technically, or the technically strong to advance (or identifying them at all) because so much emphasis is put on winning too young.
but the ongoing reality of "playing in college" (for the most part) continues and prolongs the problem of "the poor training they get as young players." let's focus on what MLS can and should be doing to address the "poor training" environment that young players (all of those up to and including the 17-22 y.o. range) are receiving in the US and MLS markets. to me, the logical approach (especially for MLS) to a solution or better reality (for the league) would be to address the 17-22 y.o. player and training issues, before worrying too much about also addressing the 12-16 y.o. or even the 6-11 y.o. training shortcomings.
We really are lucky to have guys like Goff, Wahl and Ives. They are not only good reporters, they love the sport and can ask the questions fans are interested in. I wonder if Arena would get hired by the league though. Over the years, the guy has not been afraid to speak his mind and burn some bridges in the process which might hurt his chances.
We can't keep punishing teams that generate more revenue than others. I just made the same point in another thread that while you can't be totally free market, you can't be so restrictive with the salary cap either. I see nothing wrong with introducing some kind of percentage of revenue cap in the future. Maybe not yet, but in a decade perhaps. This provides incentives for both bigger teams (those that raise more revenue) and smaller teams in varying ways. You should reward winners, not stifle them and their growth. MLS is now on a sound footing for the most part, and we need to get beyond the point level capping anyone who wants to make the next step. I think far too much is made of competitive balance, especially in soccer where advantages are more disguised. I'm a big fan of dynasties and legacies left by ambitious teams, who provide storylines in spades. I'm not a big fan of debt accumulation in order to be competitive, so a wage cap based on revenues would mitigate any risk of that.
I don't think we're disagreeing. And absolutely we're stronger physically than most nations, especially early and weaker technically. We're not bridging the gap for those players to get better technically, or the technically strong to advance and excel later (or identifying them at all) because so much emphasis is put on winning too young.
And I don't know how to get the technical players who aren't athletic freaks identified early and often. It's a systemic problem going down to the earliest ages. I think it stems from the American view of what an "athlete" looks like. Bball coach who is coaching u7-u12 has no idea what "technical skills" are in the first place. All he knows is big, fast, aggressive kid beats small kid that can dribble and shoot well most of the time. I'm not sure how to fix that view for soccer outside of developing our own soccer culture apart from the big 3.
Christ. Isn't this a perennial thread topic on the US Youth Soccer and Coaching forums? So I'll ask again. Give me a checklist of skills that a (for example) 10-year old player should know. Not wishy-washy like "makes good decisions". Make it concrete. That's the way American culture works.
With all due respect, I am one that completely 100% disagrees. I love the parity of MLS. I think it is the distinguishing feature from European leagues that can make MLS the greatest league in the world. If I want a league where the only question is which of a hand full of top teams will beat up the also-rans the most I can watch La Liga or SPL now.
Parity is fine, but having teams shed starting GKs - simply to meet the hard salary cap is ridiculous. I could see a rule where a time can't sign new players until they get below a set level, but having the Galaxy lose Ricketts was not good for the league. I recall a similar situation with Tony Sanneh back in the early days.
err I disagree with this in part. On the surface it appears to a problem; but it boils down to cap management - something almost none of the FOs have been great at to this point. The league has always been a "win now" league and I think as salaries increase teams are realizing they need to look at cap situations beyond a single year when making decisions. Let's take the LA example, at the moment they decided to use another 335k in cap space for Keane, the writing was on the wall. And I will point out, this "type"of situation would exist no matter what level the cap is at, because teams with money will spend up to the cap each year. We can't blame the low budget number (see all salary cap leagues in US and their off-season moves.)
It what way is maintaining a salary cap a punishment? It's not like the cap gets more strict as more revenue is made. Also, a percentage of revenue cap would not provide incentives for smaller teams. That would punish teams. Teams from markets that simply can't support a ridiculous local broadcast deal, for example, would never approach the same revenue as the Galaxy, even if they were better run and better loved in their respective markets. Even if they were more "ambitious." I don't understand why there are fans who want to see teams compete on an uneven playing field. It's like starting a game of monopoly with a couple thousand extra dollars just because you get paid more at your job than the other people at the table.
The supposed focus on winning is another thing that is completely overstated. They play to win in the rest of the world as well. The difference is that they have better youth structures and better coaching. In my experience really good youth coaches win games which is not the same as youth coaches that win games are good coaches since a lot of success is due to the ability to attract and keep good players.
I think we agree the college rules and structure are not ideal. But the reason we haven't been developing exceptionally good players has far more to do with what we have been doing at the younger ages. ManU didn't make Kirovski all that much better and Furman didn't really hold Dempsey back all that far. College age is more about refinement and getting experience as opposed to building raw talent. That happens much younger.
You mean players like Quavis Kirk? It not just "Bball" coaches but has been our national team soccer coaches as well. The U7-U12 coach that can actually teach the game has a big advantage over those who don't. The problem is that too few good athletes (and top level players are with few exceptions, very good athletes) got good coaching when they were younger. Certainly growing the soccer culture is part of the solution. The fact the our soccer culture has improved is the reason we are starting to get a lot of good players. The other part is to stop making excuses about things like winning games and acknowledge the problem is our coaching and youth programs have been poor and put more emphasis on improving them.
College casts a wide net that MLS cannot hope to achieve, so there will always be players from the college ranks, but that's not the issue. The issue is how do we take players already in the youth academies, getting training from U12 up, and get them ready for the first team. Saying "well, you already have the basic skills, good or bad, that have been ingrained in you from a young age, see you in four years" is a cop out. You absolutely can get good players out of the college ranks, but the bottom line is that going to college means missing 4 years of professional development. This is an obvious statement, but one that remains true regardless of if you can get a guy like Dempsey out of college. His career trajectory may have been far higher if he hadn't gone to college. He could have hit his current form at 25/26, perhaps while playing in MLS. Obviously it's a speculative single case, but on the whole a player will benefit more from 4 years of pro training than college. The same could be said for random player X who played 4 years of college ball at University Y, never got a pro contract and retired before his career began. He may have become a national team player if he had four years of pro training instead of playing a rudimentary game of college soccer in between going to keggers and chasing tail. Sure, his basic skill set was already defined before he got into college, but there is still a ton of work to be done past age 18. MLS, as an entity, can only do so much with progression of the American player. Yes, the young age groups are important, and that's why MLS has invested heavily in the Youth Academies, so it seems a bit counter productive to have a cliff at the end of it for the players who aren't ready for first team action by the time they are 18 (see: almost all players).
He didn't have to get rid of Ricketts. He could have not brought Juninho back. He could have moved Saunders. He could have not brought Buddle back. He didn't have to bring Beckham back. There are 10,000 other moves he could have made other than trade Ricketts. Ricketts stayed in the league and LAG got big allocation for Ricketts. So I don't see the problem. You can't have parity then create exceptions when you don't like the result. MLS has done far too much of that over the years. The parity will make this league great if they just stick to the convictions.
There's a pretty huge range between complete parity (MLS?) and the SPL. You could create a system that gives somewhat more rewards to teams that are able to generate exceptional amounts of revenue from their local communities without making it impossible for other teams to be MLS champions. This is especially true as long as a post-season determines the MLS champion.