Is MLS producing better talent?

Yes and no.

The average level of the American player has clearly improved. Young talents like Gil, Kitchen, Zardes, Villareal, Agudelo, JacMac and Yedlin show more youngsters with skillsets we haven't seen in these numbers before. It's promising and will be exciting to see them develop. I'll even add Fagundez who although not a citizen was largely developed here.

However, the real top end talent imo has gotten worse. I don't see any teen talent comparable to what Landon and Beasley did in the early 00's. As talented as young forwards like JacMac, Agudelo and Villareal are, Jozy was clearly better while years younger. He was producing impressive goals at 16/17. As impressive a mid like Gil is, he's a clear level or two below Bradley was when at NY as a teen.

And that was all years ago. Forget Landon and what he did, you'd think we'd have had at least one young attacking talent since Jozy who commanded similar interest and even half the transfer fee he received years ago.

Heck, we're not producing Gooch, Boca or Chero level players. Gooch was 22 when be broke into Liege. Boca when he moved to Fulham quickly became a mainstay in their backline, and while Cameron at Stoke might be similar, Boca at Fulham was more impressive. And Chero, we don't have anyone doing what he did as a RB in his early 20's for Hannover.

Omar would have in the Bund if not for the knee injury most likely, but at 24 he's still in MLS. Besler at 26, still in MLS. John at 26, still in MLS and didn't impress when trialing in the EPL, and those are most likely the top three CB's who could suit up for us along with Cameron(despite JK's opinion on John not deserving a callup). MLS has improved, but that's definitely less impressive than guys like Gooch, Chero and Boca being mainstays in better leagues in their early 20's, or Boca in his mid 20's for Fulham.

And if MLS was rejecting sizable transfer fees for youngsters, it'd be different. You could then say a Besler or a John or a Zusi would be in a top 4-6 league but MLS refused. However, that's not the case. Zusi did trial at West Ham, yet didn't impress, and he's most likely the top American winger in MLS outside of Landon. And when he has gotten real interest by 26-27 and you compare that to Beasley a decade ago.....

 

Yes. No.

 

Coaching.

 

I view this really as MLS Academy's producing better talent and have to go with a No for right now. However, most are just a few years old and I do feel they will contribute immensely to the improvement of USA talent pool 4-6 years down the road.

Problem I see that has to be overcome that these Academy's solve is truly top notch coaching at youth level and developing Technical skills at a very early age. I think this is well on the way to fruitation.

 

Why do you think that? Because of USSF academies? Because while very useful I think it's far too scattershot a system in a country as big as ours.

 

I see you're using another thread to take a pot shot at colleges.

Perhaps you should say "MLS will produce far better talent than colleges" because the facts don't yet bear out your claim. Most of the 2010 World Cup team played in college. While there certainly are very talented players like Altidore and Bradley that bypassed college, we still see new national team guys being integrated like Zusi, Gonzo, Besler, Cameron - all who played multiple years of college. Outside of Agudelo, has another MLS homegrown player made a national team appearance yet?

Besides, there are age related issues when one talks about producing talent and what college's role is. Personally I think it's more vital for us to improve pre-college development. MLS should continue to strive to greatly expand the reach of their academies - both geographically and age wise. Whether our 18 year olds sign as professionals or go off to college isn't that relevant if they are technically and tactically deficient. This fall, the US soccer development academy is expanding to have a U13/14 division. Eventually I hope all clubs have teams all the way down to U7.

Once players come of age, then the issue is how to get them real playing time. Many MLS homegrown players languish on the bench. While it's good that they are training every day with professionals, this is far from ideal. The USL loan program and the reestablished reserve league should help. Still, it seems many homegrown prospects are choosing to go to college before starting their MLS careers, which makes sense if they know they won't get playing time or aren't offered a contract.

 

Good point, but I wouldn't count on MLS to seriously make a dent in the academy marketplace. It's very expensive. I think the one day that we are able to get schools in on a better, less expensive development curriculum, the game will really take off.

 

Yes; just not for the U.S.

MLS homegrowns with at least one national team cap (1992s and later):

CANADA

Doneil Henry
Jonathan Osorio
Matt Stinson
Russell Teibert

HONDURAS

Andy Najar

 

Ah, yes, I meant the U.S., but good list.

 

Bill Hamid has played for the U.S. Ashtone Morgan has also played for Canada.

chapka cut his list off at 1992s, so these guys weren't included.

 

At first I was a big proponent of GA and academies and hated college soccer. But now I am noticing that college is actually producing better players than before. The future of the USMNT are four year college soccer players. For example there is Besler, Goodson, Zusi, Cameron, Brad Evans. Not just that the most exciting young attacker in US soccer, Luis Silva turned pro at 23. And we have more future USMNT on the way ex. Sinovic, Austin Berry etc.

I really think MLS should focus more on signing better foreign talent and let the NCAA do its job in developing players. With PDL allowing college soccer players to play and the academies prepping kids for college and the home grown system allowing college kids to become familiar with the team culture, I think we have the best of both worlds. Both the academies and NCAA could be combined to produce a better player. A player does not have to turn pro at 16-18 anymore to be a USMNT player, just compare Zusi and Luis Silva to Gil or McInerny. It is obvious who is better and cheaper to develop.

 

Disagree. I can't speak clearly to all the ones you mentioned, but I can specifically address the KC players.

College did not develop these guys. MLS did.

When Zusi got here, he was a promising bit player. It took him a year or two out of college to crack the first team and really show as a quality midfielder. Besler, took him several years to get where he was after college. Sinovic as well. Only problem is that these guys are 24 or 25 before they become quality players out there. Compare that to some of the recent homegrown guys like Zardes or Yedlin or McInerny, and they might be better now, but they've got five or more years on the college guys to get first team minutes.

Because, frankly, you compare first year Zusi to first year Gil, and the difference is insane.

 

Uh, no, and that is one of the more ridiculous things I've read around here since you posted it last time. The future of the NT will be players who turned pro at 16/17 and have 5+ years of pro experience by the time 4 year NCAA players are graduating.

But really, it's not even worth going into this. You've posted this crap before, had people explain why it's a completely loony idea, and you're just back regurgitating the same thing once again.

And why you're comparing 27 yr old Zusi to an U20 in Gil makes absolutely zero sense. Gil is 5 times the player Zusi was at the same age with loads more experience. The future of our NT is guys like Bradley and Jozy, only better, who had been pro's for 5+ years, had played in Europe for 4+ years and had 30+ full NT caps before guys like Zusi even stepped on an MLS pitch as a pro.

 

This gets more annoying every time you post it.

Look, I'm not as against college as a development path as a lot of people are. College can be a useful way to get players games, it's also a cheaper option since MLS doesn't have to spend a dime, and it provides an opportunity for players that slipped through the cracks to stand out.

That being said, MLS should be doing everything in its power to develop talent and provide a professional environment to potential players. The problem is often that when teenagers get signed by MLS, they aren't ready to play. For some of these signings, it might indeed be better for the player to go off to college, even if only a year or two. But with the rise of the partnership with USL-Pro, I think this will become less necessary.

Also, your comparisons of players that have gone through college and those that turned pro early are fundamentally flawed.

You cherry pick players you list. Yes, Zusi, Cameron, Besler all went to college and are on the national team. But Altidore and Bradley didn't. Furthermore the players you list (Gil and McInerney) are much younger than the college players you listed. They are already very talented, MLS regulars, and they could emerge as national team players in the future. It's not a fair comparison when the other players you list are 3-8 years older.

It's also an unfair comparison statistically. Around 500 players a year get scholarships to play division 1 soccer in the US. The number of players that get signed as teenagers in MLS is much much lower.

Yes MLS teams are trying to sign the most talented ones. But the development academy system still has a lot of gaps. A lot of talented players end up choosing to go to college or move abroad to Europe or Mexico.

There are numerous reasons for this. Perhaps they value an education, or MLS missed them, or they think other leagues will pay them or develop them better.

But the point is, it's unfair to do a comparison of the final product and then assume it was a better path, because there are so many more players taking the college route than sign as teenagers in MLS. Some of those players will turn out to be better than the teens signed to MLS. But perhaps they could have been even better if they were signed as teenagers to MLS themselves.

 

I am not sure this is true or even a fair measure of MLS progress or lack thereof.

MB was 17 at the beginning of his first full season in MLS (2004-5) and that year played 30 games. 1 goal, 1 assist. 30 starts. Having watched all those games it was clear he was a solid and consistent young player with talent who worked very hard on the field. In many ways he was not unlike Gil, in that he was not asked to do too much, and was deferential to Guevara, Gaven and Djorkaeff. He was not a dazzling prodigy whose high ceiling was clear. Gil had played his 30th MLS game by age 18, like MB (5 games into his second full season, 3rd season overall) and had 3 goals, 3 assists in less than 1700 minutes in contrast to MB's 2600 minutes.

Then, aged 18 MB goes to Holland and doesn't really play much in that season. At 19, he has his first significant minutes in Holland playing in 21 Eredivisie games, starting 6. Of course, its at age 20, that he goes on to have his breakout Eredivisie season with 18 goals and a nice amount of assists (~10?).

Gil just turned 20 two weeks ago and has played some 5000 league minutes, 84 games, with 8 goals and 3 assists. At the same point....2 weeks beyond his 20th birthday, MB had not yet had that breakout season and had logged 3564 minutes (the majority of which were from his one season with NY) with 1 goal and 3 assists. So, my takeaway is that it is too early to tell with respect to Gil and I think Gil's first 30 games (or first 2600 minutes) would be comparable to anything MB showed in his 30 MLS games. Similarly, it is hard for me to say that Perry Kitchen's solid and competent yet unspectacular first 30 MLS games at age 19 were clearly of lesser quality than MBs. That is not to suggest that either Kitchen or Gil is as good or will be as good as MB, just that it feels a bit revisionist to imply that MB's ceiling and talent during his brief season in MLS was clear in the same way that it was for Landon at 19 or Beas or even Jozy.

Regarding Jozy, the primary thing that distinguished him from Agudelo or Jack Mac at the same age was his ready made, man sized body and athleticism at 16. He also benefited from playing next to arguably one of the best and most polished target strikers that the league had then seen in JPA, simplifying things for Jozy. I think Conor Casey played a similar sort of role for Jack Mac this year. Juan had to try to figure out how to fit in with Henry of whom a young RVP has said was very difficult and demanding and something about not being able to understand when other player's gave him a bad pass.

Luis Silva is interesting to me, as is Zusi. Someone lauded college in their development when, like most others, I see it as an unfortunate impediment. Both guys are talented attacking players in MLS, one is firmly in the pool and the other talked about as a creative option for some future camp cupcake. Silva is 25 and has played 57 MLS games and some 4000 minutes. Zusi 27 and played 123 games and ~8500 minutes. The regret for me is not that I think these guys won't reach their potential. Rather, that they will do so much later than they should.

In contrast, Adam Lallana of Southampton like Silva is 25 and has played in some 220 league games and logged ~16000 minutes. And he has been part of England's youth set up for a long time and only now getting a few caps in friendlies.

Milner, like Zusi, is 27 and has 337 premier league games and ~ 24000 minutes.

Younes Kaboul is also 27 and has around 180 league games and ~14000 minutes ..and that guy missed a whole season with a knee injury and has been injury prone.

Adam Johnson is 26 and has 14000 league minutes between championship and the premier league and some 220 games. And everyone in the Sunderland thread thinks he sucks.

So, I am encouraged that younger and younger guys are getting minutes...Yedlins, Shane Oneills, Acosta, Delgado....Hopefully that trend continues and the minor leagues continue to emerge and offer opportunities for the young guys. Though progress in player development is slow and often seems at odds with other, equally important league priorities

 

To me, there's a clear increase in the competence of the marginal MLS starter. And that's even with expansion. I think you can also make a reasonable case that there's an increase in the number of the "good" player, which I'll define as a guy who is a clear starter but not a star on the average MLS team, the kind of player who could start for a Shield contender.

But I'm not seeing, yet, the increase in the top end player. But then, that's not really an MLS issue typically, because Altidore and Bradley and Najar and most of the rest are in Europe now. I will say that in general the MLS exports have not continued to develop as well as I think we could reasonably expect. That's been a disappointment.

So maybe what I'm trying to say is that MLS is not properly preparing its best prospects for Europe. Or maybe I'm just babbling.

 

I think this is a good assessment.

MLS has done a very good job ensuring that the weakest starting player is of decent quality. This is a significant accomplishment as the league grew from 10 teams in 2004 to 19 this past season.

However, I struggle to think of many players - particularly US-eligible players - who've made an immediate impact in a better league (Holden, Kljestan, and Cameron are the ones that come to mind.) I'd have to do more research to see if this is a higher or lower success rate than other feeder leagues, but it feels low compared to, say, Holland and Portugal being feeders for England/Spain/Germany/Italy/France.

I think this dynamic is a byproduct of single-entity. Like the NFL, NBA, or NHL, MLS tries to ensure competitive balance across the entire league. This is counter to every other soccer league in the world, where the strong get stronger in the Champions League era.

 

Possibly.

Can you describe the mechanism by which you think this happens?

 

Are you thinking that a strongly disbalanced league would lead to a couple teams hoarding the top American talent. His theory might be that playing for a superclub would positively impact bright young prospects into performing at a higher level? The better team, better player idea?

 

Sure thing. Also, don't interpret this as an anti-single entity take, as I also believe the structure (along with SUM rights) kept the league viable in its first decade.

Off the top of my head:
- Democratization of talent pool, through player acquisition and retention. This covers everything from the draft, the You Suck Allocation money, and the nefarious player acquisition process (as a Quakes fan, I still remember trading half an allocation for Ricardo Clark...)

- Tight salary cap in pre-DP era to control player salary costs

- Only recently emerging incentives for CONCACAF advancement, homegrown player development, and transfer funds (I remember international competition being viewed more as a burden than reward.)

- Along those same lines, MLS Cup viewed as most prestigious reward (above Supporter's Shield and International play), but fairly easy path to playoff qualification (Editorial: I'm a fan of playoffs, I just want to see better teams and single-game playoffs)

 

I think in an unbalanced league, you'd see intra-league player movement driven by a desire to improve (relative to international competition) rather than a desire to stay under the salary cap for domestic competition.

Whether this is a good thing or bad thing for MLS is an additional debate.

 

Short answer. Not yet.

However, the path is in the right direction. Slow and steady progress. The last U20 World Cup team had 12 players who spent time in an MLS academy (Yedlin, O'Neill, Trapp, Pineda, Rodriguez, Villarreal, McIntosh, Torre, Acosta, Garcia, Sorto, Steffen) plus two players who signed with the league as teenagers (Gil and Lopez). So there was representation from the Sounders, Rapids, Crew, Fire, Galaxy, Earthquakes, FC Dallas, RSL, SKC, and Union.

So that's new, however the results weren't any better than previous groups (albeit with a hellacious draw).

Who has the "big money" for youth development in this country? Its not the USSF, which would rather spend the money on other things (and reportedly would love to close Bradenton and pass the development baton to MLS and DA teams). It's not the NCAAs. The big money to sign elite youth coaches, build elite youth facilities, etc. is in MLS.

And just so we're all clear, the development academy is having a great effect on the NCAA game. That's all moving in the same direction. This isn't an MLS or NCAA scenario. Both avenues are currently vital.

 

Indeed both avenues are converging. I don't follow other academies, but the Fire academy is criticized locally for its failure to impact the first team. However, this may be changing in a big way as soon as next season with Superdraft first round talent like Shipp (ND) and second round talent like Ritter (NW) & Ciesiulka (Marq.) available on Homegrown contracts. The fact that many elite academy players (and their families) choose selective private school tuition money (NW 60k/yr & ND45k/yr) over maybe 100k salary at best as a pro merely delays these players development a few years, though not all four.

Whatever merits (or lack, thereof) college coaching & competition have, these players spend considerable non-college season time within the professional club, whether Super-20, PDL, or first team practices. The NCAA game benefits, the MLS club benefits, and the player benefits. No more Mike Fisher scenarios because the club and player know each other's level of interest well ahead of the point either needs to make a decision.