As MLS gets stronger- much stronger, a problem has developed. Namely as MLS signs P-40 players at 17-21, many of the future USMNT kids aren't playing much!! Johnson, Mapp, Barclay, many others. If you think about it, this is an inevitable aspect of MLS's real growing strength. What to do?? Why can't MLS form a REAL alliance with the A-league? Give the A-league some of these young stars on extended loan and help pay their salary. The alternative is to let them rot on MLS benches. If nothing is done soon, it will be unfair, even unethical to sign these very young kids if they have little chance to play. It is fine to diss college soccer as a place to breed future US players IF you have some place where they can PLAY ( not watch) as an alternative!
Until the league is in the finacial situation where it can maintain reserve teams I think your idea has good merit. It has been occurring to some degree, with loans, etc., but I think the arrangement changed for this next year.
MLS is fairly clueless when it comes to player development. Everything's short term, short term. Let's hope they can iron out some kind of deal with the A-League. Brad Davis and Kyle Martino didn't have many problems getting time last year. Barclay and Ed Johnson also got at least some time for their teams. It's still better for a kid to sign P40 and have that roster protection than wait out four years of college and have to try and exist on 1K a month. If you're talking U17s, it's better for them to go to Europe with a John O Brien or Grover Gibson-esque attitude and play with European reserve teams. That's purely from a developmental standpoint. Mentally, most kids aren't ready to be away from home at that age.
Johnson was promoted as the next big thing. I hope he is but has played very little for a guy with some obvious talent. Not at all good for a guy 17-18 years old.
He missed two months of training with a high ankle sprain and nearly two other weeks because of a death in the family. He still saw plenty of action with the U20s. I'm almost certain he'll break out this year when he turns 19.
I believe they did away with it because the players that were playing P-40 weren't getting a chance to show their MLS coaches what they could do. Seeing as they always played away games and would have to travel between the two teams, the coaches couldn't see them in practice, the best chance for a fringe player to be seen, as he isn't likely to get much real playing time.
the need to play is paramount. When any teams loans a player they can't watch them every day. But what good is watching them NOT play!
I think MLS just needs expansion and some more teams. There is some pretty good talent, young and old, sitting on MLS benches. With the contraction to 10 teams last year, a lot of young players just got pushed down to the bench. I like the idea of young players playing in the A-League, but some of the better ones need to play in MLS, and there just aren't enough spots right now.
I agree with this. But there is just not enough slots in MLS now. I have heard that Arena has praised the quality of play in the A-league lately. I think A-league loans is the way to go. If you can't give that 17-20 year old regular time, let him play in the A-league!
It's certainly something that needs to be improved, but these kids are practicing against good players and many MLS teams do have exhibition games during the season in which they send the back end of their roster. There's also early round US Cup games. The situation should be better, no doubt, but you have to be happy that these 17-21's are AT LEAST involved in a professional enviroment. That was something we bitched about in the past. We've seen the benefits of of being a young professional at the US youth team level. And remember, maybe some kids DON'T deserve the playing time. One, some kids can't cut it. Two, some develop slower than others. I'm all for a reserve team/A-League arrangement, but the system is not that bad. BTW, don't some MLS teams have some sort of agreement with a lower level team?
if a kid is good enough to get signed at that age by MLS , he deserves playing time. The question is where, right? So my point is that as MLS gets batter, fewer 17,19 year-olds will command a regular position in MLS. That is fine as long as they have a place to play. And just practicing with MLS is absolutely NOT good enough. We have seen US players skills deteriorate just practicing with Euro teams. Kids 17 MUST be playing in regular games. If they can't, they should have gone to college.
Fixed your post. At this age a player MUST be getting at least 8-10 months of training and games. I think Sarachan may have found a temporary solution--expand MLS rosters to 24 and take those players on the road trip and have the players who don't participate in the match play a game afterwards. That delays the team bus trip to the airport by 130 minutes or so.....and gives the kids a chance to play in front of their coach. I guess the question is: What would be better? Doing that or actually playing in the A-league? What's more cost effective? Loans to the A-league sound more cost effective since the A-league team would be responsible for the transportation costs of the player. Perhaps they could also pick up a part of the players' salaries.
That's Bruce S' point---we don't have reserve teams yet, and now the kids aren't getting as much opportunity.
A-League teams don't want to pick up the cost of P-40s or whomever coming down from MLS. Or at least I would imagine. And one of the main sticking points is A-League coaches and hierarchy don't just want to accept players and throw them into the starting 11 since thos eplayers haven't been practicing with the team day in, day out. It f**cks with the chemistry and spirt of their team and heck, they're trying to win a title and form an impression and win games just like any other soccer team. They don't exist just for the whims of MLS, and I think that's one of the main reason they haven't reupped their agreement with the big league. If MLS can't have 10 reserve sides, how about 4 or 5 reserve sides, located georgraphically near one another (the East Coast?), made up of about 50% of one MLS team's youngins, and 50% of another. I can already see a few good reasons why it may not be a great idea (the Galaxy and Earthquakes would be a at a big disadvantage, e.g., if they wanted to send a veteran down for a reserve game to go help get back in shape, and he had to fly all the way back to NY, where the Metros veteran would just have to drive 10 minutes), but still, maybe the benefits outweigh the disadvantages? Personally I don't think we'll see reserve sides until about 2017, if then.
I almost started a thread like this about what to do with all these young players. The fact is that if they earn significant time before they are age 22 then the young players are doing better than the guys who go the college then MLS rout. I don't see it as a problem really yet. These players aren't rotting on benches, they are learning. I think MLS expansion in 2004 will come at a perfect time. The level of play will not really decrease because the player pool will have increased. If you throw these players out there when they aren't really ready then MLS gets hurt and the product level goes down. Sure they have the raw talent, but that takes refinement and it really takes a special teenager to suceed and benefit from being thrown to the wolves. We are all exicited about the future and want to see these guys play, but they will get their shot when they are ready.
That's what I'm saying. I don't think its hit critical mass yet. I'm going to say it again, as a guy who likes all sports, some players deserve to be getting the time while others can't handle it yet. Some players need to be broken in slowly, and fewer games is not that big of a problem. Two questions: 1. Just who is getting screwed by lack of playing time? 2. Why in the #$@^@#$ hasn't MLSnet.com updared players career stats to include 2002?