It's never too early: A look ahead at the 2012 Olympic pool

Shrug.

It's the Big Soccer way. The players we haven't seen are always better than the players we see on a weekly basis in MLS.

It's further a stupid topic, because Garza prefers playing on the right as far as I know. I don't think Shea and Garza would be competing for playing time anyway.

Of course...........keeping Sam Garza, Victor Garza, and Greg Garza straight in my head is a challenge. I could be wrong. Greg Garza's a left back/left mid at Tijuana. Victor Garza is a right winger/forward at Tigres. And Sam Garza is a left winger/forward for San Jose. I think................

To further complicate matters all three are from Texas I believe. One from Carrolton. One from Grapevine. And one from Edinburg. Let me see if I can get this right! I think Sam is the one from Carrolton. Greg is the one from Grapevine. And Victor is from Edinburg. I know Victor is the one from Edinburg, because he's from the Southern Part of the state.

 

"It's john3628"

 

What is that suppose to mean? I may not be an expert but I do have the right to express my own opinions. At least my knowledge of the game is not limited to what I see in MLS.

 

I wonder how many people would agree with it today.

And I am not trying to rub your nose in this in any way. It has been something I have kept in mind over the past year as Mexico has played so well throughout the Olympics. Individually Brazil will probably be worth more on the transfer market, but Mexico has acquitted itself well in these games, regardless of the Gold Medal game result.

 

Mexico are a good team and deserve credit for getting to the Gold Medal game. Still one has to take into account the odd situation that Olympic soccer is in. It's a U-23 tournament right after the Euros with an odd geographic distributions of teams. Many of the best U-23 players were not able to participate in the tournament either because they themselves were fatigued or their clubs thought so. Then there is the fact that only two South American teams and three european teams, so you don't get an fully stocked tournament in either players or teams. I don't think the Olympics are an accurate representation of the best group of U-23 players in the world for those reasons and some others. That's not to take away from Mexico who won the games they needed to win and will win the first Olympic medal for CONCACAF. (Canada and the US have Olympic medals from 1904 but CONCACAF has only existed since 1961)

 

Yeah, I'm afraid I'm still with RC. Getting to the Olympic final is obviously a good sign for Mexico, but I'm not blown away by their talent, especially compared to what Germany has in this age group.

If Mexico wins on Friday, however, they deserve to celebrate.

 

They deserve to celebrate anyway, but beating that Brazil team would be a real accomplishment.

 

Mexico clearly has a lot to work with across all youth levels.

They won 2 of the last 4 U17 World Cups, finished 3rd at the most recent U20 World Cup, will at least get the silver medal at the U23 Olympics, and won the most recent Gold Cup.

Sometimes you see a nation have an isolated youth team reach great heights, and you can push it aside as an anomoly. However, you HAVE to take notice of a whole bunch of success across the board like Mexico is currently having. It's not an accident.

It's true that their talent level may not be as great Germany, Spain, Brazil, etc...............but it's pretty damn good.

 

The role FMF plays is so important. Although I think I read that the rule regarding youth minutes has been scrapped. That's good news for US(a)!

 

Not sure where you saw that. At present, the rule is still in effect.

 

I saw it last year, I thought. Just googled and found some fan site mention it, but nothing else.

Not so good for US(a).

 

Until MLS pushes the envelope and invests heavily in getting our nation's best youth into free residential training environments so they train 5 days a week for 2-3 hours a day like Toronto and Vancouver we will be spinning our wheels. USSF can not compete with FMF in training top level youth players. Its unfair to think its even close.

 

Apart from helping Mexico, it's not bad news for us. Several members of our own national team pool were helped along by this rule.

 

One of us doesn't understand.

FMF imposed the rules on the Mexican league. The teams were forced.

 

Not commenting on the minutes rule but rather intensive youth training we can't match if all our youth players are commuting long distances.

 

I don't know if this is what he is referencing.
http://www.fmfstateofmind.com/2011/6/7/2211593/fmf-liguilla-format-apertura-2011-mexican-primera

 

It's only a small part of the reason for Mexico's youth success.

A club like Chivas has a fully residential academy, with 4 different levels of reserve teams. They have a reserve team in the second division, a reserve team in the 4th division, a U20 team, and on and on down the line.

So a kid that's promoted to the first team has been "vetted" at level after level. They're not playing youth players for the sake of playing youth players. They're playing youth players that deserve to be there.

It would be silly forcing MLS coaches to play guys like Lalo Fernandez, Victor Ulloa, etc. FCD has 4 or 5 better central midfielders than Victor Ulloa. What's Victor doing on their roster? Beats me. If he was a Chivas player, he's probably be at their 4th division club.

 

Yes, I agree, MLS managers would have to manage differently if things were different.

Other than that, you don't have much of an interesting point. Of course, it'd be easier if MLS clubs had that Chivas set-up. But they don't. We adapt with what we have rather than stand still because of what we don't.

PS 1: I don't go to MLS games any more because I have no interest at all in watching average journeymen players slug it out. If MLS played young American players, I'd be there every game.

PS 2: "It's only a small part" - you don't know that, so please don't assert things as if they are facts just because you want to believe them. You can posit it, or wonder, or argue for it. But don't just beg the question. Maybe Chivas would do all that without the FMF. I don't know. But Chivas is not the only club in the league. FMF wouldn't have put the rule in place if there had been no need to do so.

 

Mexico has won 2 of the last 4 U17 World cups, and finished 3rd in the most recent U20's. That has nothing to do with them playing youth players in their first teams, because the majority of those players aren't playing in their first teams!!!

It's the youth development infrastructure prior to the first team that have led to these successes. And these players are matriculating to their first teams when they've earned that right.

I mean, Scotland has rules dictating clubs need a certain number of youth players on their SPL gameday rosters. (They must use three U21s) What has it meant for the Scottish national team? I don't know.........but I just saw the USMNT blow them out of the water.

Having rules forcing MLS players to play youth players is fine (I'm not particularly against it), but it's meaningless if those players aren't ready to play MLS-caliber ball.

 

Right, so you agree with me. Putting an incentive in place to motivate better youth development makes a difference.

Scotland is a red herring, but I take it you know that.

 

You just read completely past his point and added in an unnecessarily confrontational style as well.

 

No. I didn't.

The idea never has been to put bad players on the field. But rather to find a way to make better players. Clubs need incentives to change their structure and methods. A youth rule would provide such an incentive. Pointing out that Chivas has a tremendous academy has nothing to do with the cart/horse problem here. I fail to see how the increase in youth academies/games is anything BUT a reflection of the youth rule. It is evidence FOR its impact, not against it.

In other words: I wasn't claiming that the top-flight games with youth players in them was what made the youth players better (this seems to be what Clint thought I meant). It was the DEMAND that they field the youth players that forced the teams to take more seriously development, the fruits of which are evident.

As for Scotland, it IS a red herring. Many Scottish youth are dual eligible and nearly half of their U21 squad already plays in England. Thus the problem for Scotland and America isn't strictly analogous (especially considering population numbers in our soccer cities vs theirs).

For what it is worth, I find Clint's tone incredible arrogant and confrontational.

 

Hi RC. I think this has been covered, but I would probably be equally skeptical if we were talking about one success in one youth tournament. My guess is we can look back at a number of "flash in the pan" type of successes. It seems to me Mexico is building something bigger in terms of a youth foundation, and this latest Olympics is just one more data point that supports that.

Regardless, does Mexico have the best collection of young players in the world? In the not too distant past, that idea would (and did) get you laughed at. Now it is getting increasingly hard to laugh at that notion, and it should at least be considered. I think they are one of the best youth programs in the world, and that foundation will lead to them being a contender to reach the semifinals of the World Cup over the next two cycles. We shall see.

I have said for a while the US must pay attention to their southern neighbors if they have any ambitions of keeping up. I do not think the US should or can emulate Mexico in every detail. The principle of what Mexico is doing, however, is what matters. They have imposed rules and incentives to develop youth Mexican players, and in my opinion have left the US in their wake. It is not enough to apologize for the status quo or even the minor improvements that have been made - if staying competitive is the ambition. Because the US has not been competitive in recent years, and will not be until they make big moves in this area. Like Mexico.

 

Can't remember where I heard it, either one of those sky sports epl pre game round tables or perhaps a guardian uk podcast. But one of the English pundits referred to Mexico as a minor footballing nation and given the speaker was not from Brazil, Germany, Italy of Argentina, I found it particularly galling.

 

I agree that it's ignorant, although you can understand why a casual observer might think that way. There haven't been many Mexicans on the biggest stages, either for their clubs or their national team. Over the past 25 years or so, they've been as consistently good as almost anyone, but if you don't advance beyond the round of 16, you're not going to turn people's heads.