Is MLS Hurting the Development of young Americans?

Great post, lot of good points. Now prepare to die

 

I'll only comment on Memo.

He does possess a silky smooth touch and moments of true vision, but the game is 90 minutes and requires that you exert yourself, and the latter part is what keeps Memo off the field. Memo will always have trouble making a serious bid to be a vital member of any team in any professional league where players must fight for their jobs. I predict that Memo will be one of those guys that people ask years later, "What ever happend to...?" And it goes well beyond what MLS can and cannot provide for him. Motivation must start from within.

 

MLS is the greatest thing to happen to soccer in the history of our program.It would be even better with reserve teams, that is true.

 

you make a great point.
on the quakes a player like arturo alvarez could benefit greatly from 90 minutes a week of playing time. but, like you said, dom kinnear isn't in the business of developing bruce's next winger. he's in the business of winning games now and that's why ian russell and/or ramiro corrales get the call.

reserve teams would be great. but, for better or worse, how it is now is all we've got and it's better than nothing. sure, taking the european route would be nice, but that route isn't available to every player.

 

I'm sure Szetela knows what's best for himself. And I'd bet you a million bucks that Szetela isn't thinking about how he's not guaranteed field time, but rather, who the poor sap is going to be who will have to sit because he plays in Szetela's position.

The story is not all rosy playing for a Euro reserve team either. Ask Donovan.

 

You can find individual players who might be better off in Europe than MLS but there's no way that the player pool as a whole would benefit from the league's demise. For every Memo Gonzalez I can point to three or four Josh Gros' who may not even have been playing professionally 9 years ago. And while a full reserve system may be preferable to riding the bench with an occassional scrimmage players are still improving. For Dallas Eddie Johnson has matured a great deal in the last season and reportedly Ramon Nunez has greatly advanced his game without getting a minute of professional time.

 

You know I nearly went mental when I read this thread. But then I thought to myself, you know, he may have a point. It may be better for a Szetella to go to Europe. MLS may not be the best place for him. Opportunities are limited and meaningful games are harder to come buy for guys who arent ready to play right away. Then again, I think college is probably the best developmental option for the league and the US, as going to Europe has its own pitfalls. Yet college is a bad word among some here. You know its funny, but the team that did the best this last cycle was the one with the most college players. Fancy that.

So I guess I agree with Apoo up to a point. Now if he says that we need players in Euroland to be successful, because those Euros no how to play soccer and we dont, then ill beat him over the head with a tire iron and toss him into a quarry somewhere. The only thing we really need players in Euro for is to assuage the inferiorty complex of people who think if a player hasnt made it in Europe, hes crap. Thats another topic though, I think.

But if European options are there, and these kiddies want to make the big bucks and be pros right away, why not. Won't hurt us, may hurt them in the end. But thats not my problem.

 

I see the merits of this arguement when considering a guy like Memo, Danny or even Adu - guys billed to be stars who are young but often don't get much playing time.

However, not only is it unprovable through comparative evidence any of their growth is stunted, similar options simply aren't available to players of lesser quality - Gray, Beckerman, Trembly, Barclay, Mapp, Alvarez, Capano - who similarly have spent time or currently languish on their squad's bench.

These players, while having great potential, never drew the kind of European interest as teenagers a Szetela or Adu did and presumably would struggle to find a place on a Euro reserve team.

Concerning my first point, its very inconclusive as to whether any young player would be better in a Euro reserve team or here in MLS. Unfortunately, anecdotes for either side aren't readily available. Would an Everton-bred Szetela be better than a MLS-bred Szetela? Would Adu be better on Chelsea's youth team or with Nowak's DC United?

Which brings me to my next point: Would Donovan have been better sticking it out in Leverkusen or was he better off coming to MLS and winning two MLS Cups? I hardly consider it a reach to conclude that Donovan would never have made the 2002 World Cup squad if in Germany or be the quality player he is now. Granted, I certainly hope Donovan goes to Europe, but its undeniable his MLS experience helped his development.

Similarly, to the contrary of your arguement are Bobby Convey, DaMarcus Beasley, Eddie Johnson, as well as Eddie Gaven to a lesser extent. All three signed with MLS young and were given time to develop slowly, similarly to Adu and Memo. Undeniably, they are success stories, especially Convey and Beasley who have had even more time to develop.

I'm hardly saying that a Euro move as a youngster is always a bad thing or ever is. However, I think it naive to discount the merits of staying in MLS - a familiar culture, surrounding and often with family. Honestly, the best conclusion is really that different options work best for different players.

Concerning players like Beckerman, Trembly, Gray, etc, I consider it the lesser of two evils that they spent time on an MLS bench, not given a Euro option, and never went to college. Granted, college players have their fair share of success stories, but typically those players are often more hit and miss (Gbandi, Wingert, Curtis, Moore).

 

Here, to answer the initial question: Yes, MLS is hurting the development of some young Americans.

However, is MLS helping the development of other young Americans? You bet.

 

Reserve squads would be good. But, the MLS rosters are so small that it almost guarantees that every player who makes the team will get significant playing time. That is, in most cases, good.

 

plus, it seems like it's easier for a young american player to get lost in the system over at a big european club.
in the short term getting to play some reserve matches might be better, but perhaps in the long term MLS is better because of the increased chance of first-team ball.

 

Did someone say Jovan Kirovski?

Or even better yet, John Thorrington. Would he have been better off in MLS?

 

Exactly!!!!

If the question was "Would MLS benefit with a youth program?" I would say yes hands-down. But in the case of Donovan, the US Nats have benefitted from the league acting as a very competative reserve league for young US players with Euro-potential more-so than a Bundesliga reserve situation. I honestly think that Conor Casey would be worlds ahead if he were playing for an MLS side for the past year.

If you are playing for a reserve club in England, Germany, etc, you are lookng to get ahead of a large group of other players to get a shot at the first-team in the event of multiple injuries or a good cup run. In MLS, you are fighting in practice to be in the starting 11 for the next senior match. (unless you're Adu).

I remember the days when US players werent respected enough to get jobs in Europe, because there was no league in the US and they had nowhere to prove their quality. Ask Boca, Sanneh, Mathis or McB where they would be on any level without MLS. And they are still in our national team mix.

Just sayin'.

 

First off, the comment that some Euro kid is better than Alvarez because hes playing against West Colcester United in the U-19 youth cup is amusing. You do realize that Alvarez is a part time player (and by the end of the year I think he will be a full time player) in a league thats of signifigantly more quality than a reserve side match? MLS guys who are on the bench dont benefit from games right away, but they will get there time if they are good enough. Or they will be passed by those dreaded "college kids" playing in that crazy backward NCAA that is singlehandedly holding us back.

As for Josh Gros, the guy is a hell of a player, and I suggest you take the "never played for a youth national team" glasses off and watch him play. Same with Parke. Ultimately, getting guys into our player pool who didnt get noticed by the youth national teams at a young age is important. Because in a country as large and diverse as ours, its suicidal to expect that at the ages of 17 and 20 we are going to be able to accurately identify the top 20 that our going to be pros. You know, guys like Kenny Cooper, who probably will never have played for a U-whatever team if we end up capping him. Would have gone to SMU if he didnt have some connections that got him a looksie at ManU (not saying he didnt earn it Mike, just that he had an opportunity most American youths wouldnt have had to prove himself) You know, one of those kids in the ManU reserves who played pretty well from the start. Who would have been playing at SMU otherwise. If 3 years from now Cooper were an MLS draft pick, would you be saying "I care more about the Memo's of this world more than the Cooper's of this world"?

 

Killer examples. Not to mention the re-education Mr Gibbs is getting right now!

 

Only two of those guys are really in the current U.S. player pool though and Claudio was pretty fully developed by them time MLS started up. Sure its nice to have guys like Russell and Gooch working to establish themselves internationally but Bruce Arena seems to feel that there better domestic alternatives. While he could certainly be wrong Arena has also been able to see more tape of either one than anybody here, I'd imagine

 

Yes! Two words, 'Clint Mathis'.

Josh has a fire that I have not seen since Olsen was in his younger prime. Perhaps 'fire' and 'athleticism' does not get you a Nike contract, but he is a killer player who makes a difference without any experience in the Manchester United youth program.

 

In the years before the 2002 World Cup, the USMNT was paper thin. Coaches would scour Europe for anyone with pro experience. These days, it's pretty obvious that the player pool is pretty deep and getting deeper every year. What's the difference? Well, most people would say the players developed in MLS.

Sure, there are going to be players with great reputations who don't develop well in MLS. Just like there's a long list of players who signed on with European youth programs a but never saw 1st team soccer. But for every Steve Sachs, selected #1 inMLS but who never amounted to everything, there's a half dozen players who nobody had heard of but who became solid professionals in the league.

PLayers can develop in MLS. Players can develop in Europe. And players can turn out to be crap in either system. What's the OP suggesting? That we close down MLS and send all our players to European clubs? Or maybe he's just yanking our collective chain with a bit of Eurosnobbery.

 

The MLS should start loaning player to the A-League, players like Memo, that have potential but can’t crack the starting line-up in the MLS.
I am sure the Jonathan Spector made the right choice, learning from Rio (the best defender in the world) and practicing against Ruud is going to work in his favor.
The reports I have read of Spector’s progress lead me to believe that he will get some 1st team action soon.
Landon wanted to be first choice at a big club at 17, that is not going to happen unless you are amazing and the players ahead of you are injured or in a major slump.
Landon played with the U17 = GREAT, one year on the reserve team of his German club = great, that prepared him to go start in to MLS starting lineup. He should have stayed only 2 year in the MLS and moved on to Europe.
I don’t think there is an easy solution to this, every situation is different.

MLS > Euro Reserve
Euro Reserve > MLS Bench