We are entering the eighth season, and the league has done wonders for finding the most talented younger players, players who are at or around the same talent level of top youngsters from around the world. I do not think that any of us (as American fans of the USMNT and MLS) want to see our young players going to Europe. But it seems like the next step in development. After watching our attacking players like Donovan, Mathis, Convey, Pablo and DMB just get outclassed by the Argentines on a tactical level. Their spacing and runs were just light years ahead of our players'. This speaks volumes about the quality of the Argentine league, and more specifically the 'talent' of their coaches. I understand that the experiment with foreign coaches early in the league was an obvious failure. But was that an indictment of the coaches, or what they were asking out of the players? I think that all of us will agree, the league is at a completey different state now. I believe we are ready to ask foreign coaches back, and the players will respond in a different matter. I want to watch our players develop here, not in Europe, and we need the tactical awareness on the field to improve to take the next step as a footballing nation. I want that high profile Italian, Argentine or English coach here. What does everyone else think. (And I certainly do not think that we should replace all of our coaches, Hankinson, Bradley, Hudson and Yallop all seem to be pretty damn good). And I will wait to get into the development (and confidence) or our defensive players until later, I am sure no one wants to see the ball booted 50 yards up the field in hopes that something will develop, it often does not. (And incidently, Arena was yelling at our players late in the second half of the Argentina game to play the ball on the ground through Donovan, Mathis, and Mastro, where we saw incredible improvement in the attack.
MLS has had big name coaches.. Milutinovic, Parriera and at least one other that I've forgotten about it. They've all failed. Why recycle failures? American coaching will take a major leap forward when more MLS players retire and take up coaching careers. Sachin
big name coaches in europe don't develop the talent... it's pretty much developed by the time they get it our coaches have to coach and manage... and do it over a wider variety of talent
I am not saying to get those same coaches, but think about it. The quality of the players on a leaguewide level has changed dramatically. I think the reason those coaches were not successful because the players were too old and not as talented. Listen, I am only saying this in response to the game on Sat. against Argentina. What is the difference between American and Argentine players of roughly the same age? It has to be the coaching. There is an age where Americans start to show distinct defficencies in their game. And it is about that age, 20-25. As an example, I have seen no development in Donovan's game, at an MLS level, for the past year or so. Many say he has to go to Europe to develop further. I say, keep him here and improve the quality and proffesionalness of the coaches at the MLS level and you will see an incredible jump in the technical, and tactical awareness abilities of our players.
But the coaches don't operate in isolation. The entire environment surrounding soccer is not as good in the US. Kids don't learn the sort of skill that I presume (couldn't watch the game here) the Argies were showing from coaches-- they learn it through constant contact with the ball. Look, watch more US vs. any latin opposition. THere is always a skill gap-- even against pretty humble teams like Guatemala (which isn't known for its skill). Our game just isn't a skill game-- it's tactics, it's athleticism, but not skill. So what do you want? Coaches to teach skill? It won't work AND the foreign coaches will usually lack the most important ability of an MLS coach-- spotting cheap (ie young) US talent-- because they don't know the players and aren't familiar with our very strange developmental system (college/P40/U-teams).
New coaches in MLS is not the answer to the problem you are mentioning. It's much more about the overall evolution of our soccer culture, where players are playing the game more on their own,developing creativity and flair, and where coaches at even young age groups are consistently well-versed in how to train and develop young talent. We're coming along in both areas. That we're this bothered by a 1-0 loss to Argentina should say something in itself. Yes, there is still a way to go but a lot of good things are happening, and I think coaching education is a vital ingredient toward continued progress internationally. The MLS coaches are fine. Our short-term problem Saturday was the lack of a skilled, controlling midfielder, and to be honest, I'm not sure where we turn to for that player after Claudio (funny, but the name that keeps coming up in my head is Guillermo Gonzalez, and I know it's too early for THAT). I'm interested to note that we still employ two wide players, right and left wing, while we have an attacking midfielder pushed up behind the strikers like Olsen, and later Donovan were, Saturday. I wonder if we might see just one winger (pick a side) and then an extra midfielder in the middle, not a d-mid like Mastroeni for more of a true central midfield player. But again, I'm not sure who that player would be (do we have one?)
New coaches in MLS is not the answer to the problem you are mentioning. It's much more about the overall evolution of our soccer culture, where players are playing the game more on their own,developing creativity and flair, and where coaches at even young age groups are consistently well-versed in how to train and develop young talent. We're coming along in both areas. That we're this bothered by a 1-0 loss to Argentina should say something in itself. Yes, there is still a way to go but a lot of good things are happening, and I think coaching education is a vital ingredient toward continued progress internationally. The MLS coaches are fine. Our short-term problem Saturday was the lack of a skilled, controlling midfielder, and to be honest, I'm not sure where we turn to for that player after Claudio (funny, but the name that keeps coming up in my head is Guillermo Gonzalez, and I know it's too early for THAT). I'm interested to note that we still employ two wide players, right and left wing, while we have an attacking midfielder pushed up behind the strikers like Olsen, and later Donovan were, Saturday. I wonder if we might see just one winger (pick a side) and then an extra midfielder in the middle, not a d-mid like Mastroeni for more of a true central midfield player. But again, I'm not sure who that player would be (do we have one?)
Well the coaching yes, and the opportunities for coaches to really teach our kids the technical skills we need to excel. The difference between the Argentine and American players, it seeems to me, is this- how many times did the Argentine players mis-trap or serve a terrible ball, without pressure, much less in high pressure situations? Not much at all. As for our players, it seemed all game long we were lacking in basic technical skills. As for having the MLS fix this problem for 20-25 year olds, you are about 10 years too late to really change those bad habits and poor technical skills. We need to focus on techincal development from 11-17 and forget about the all consuming preoccupation with winning silly youth championships/tournaments. Winning at that age should be a by-product of the proper development. Only at the highest levels should it even be given any merit (read Youth World Championships). When technical development (and tactical work, but less so at younger ages) becomes our focus, we will be able to produce greater numbers (20-30 or more instead of 2 or 3 every age group) of players ready for the world stage
The difference between the Argentines and the US at 20-25 is the amount they've played between 10-17. Do you think the Argentines were playing Baseball, Basketball, Football, or any other sports? No, they were out with their friends on the playgrounds or in the lots or in the streets developing technical skills. It's hard to develop something that comes naturally. I think that the MLS clubs need to develop youth systems like the teams in Europe to teach the skills to American kids at younger ages. The U-17 academy is doing one heck of a job in this area, but this type of program needs to be built upon with similar ones. That's the only way we can develop the talent needed to compete on the World Class stage.
Do you mean Ivo Wortman? Actually, we did have a good foreign coach in MLS, Carlos Quieroz (now assistant at Man U?), but he left for greener pastures.
Yes, it says that we know when our team played like crap. I wouldn't be terribly bothered by a 1-0 loss to Argentina, any more than I was "bothered" by our 1-0 loss to Germany. I'd possibly be devastated, depending on the circumstances (as I was against Germany), but I wouldn't be bothered so long as we didn't play like we did this weekend.
Here's a review of the players for that game: http://www.topdrawersoccer.com/NationalTeams/1044751065/view I don't think that there is any problem with player development in MLS. The fact that you saw a better Argentina team is the result of several factors, but I wouldn't say that superior coaching is one of them. 1. Far bigger talent pool from which to select 2. Two super-teams from Argentina 3. Age of MLS 4. Missing players Let's face it, Argentina has millions of kids growing up playing the game from the time they can walk. Also, they play it all the time, unlike US youth who usually only play it "in season" if they play it at all. And even if they were good, they don't turn professional until college aged. It is central to Argentina's culture, and it's just beginning to become part of our sports culture. Much of the Argentina team came from River Plate or Boca Juniors. So many of them had cohesion because they play with one another every day at their club level. Plus, those two teams are two of the top half dozen feeder teams in the world, and probably the top two. They don't attract "good" players, they attract phenomenal players. And they select them, not recruit them. They get most at a very young age and train them professionally while our kids are playing soccer/football/baseball/basketball/hockey and dividing their time between them all. John O'Brien once mentioned that when Ajax found him he was "good" at quite a few sports but great at none. Ajax made him great at one, but he didn't even go there until he was about 16. Just imagine how good he could have been if he had begun concentrating on soccer at age 6 like in Argentina? MLS is only in it's 8th season. It really hasn't had much impact on our soccer development because only in the last several years has it even been noticed in the US. But it will, and the groundwork is being laid. For instance, just today one of MLS' leading youth development clubs, DC United, announced they were moving to year-round training. Argentina has that from age 6 onward. Eventually MLS will expand the pool, but we need to give it some time. I think the results of the US Soccer Federation's U-17 residency camp has really helped our development, and that was only 20 kids a year! Now it's 30 kids a year. IMHO, Donovan, Convey and DaMarcus--the major products of that residency camp system--showed they were capable of competing with Argentina. A single club in Argentina is doing the equivalent of that residency every year, and they don't wait until the kids are 16 to do it. When MLS teams get full fledged reserve teams and residency camps get earlier, we should be able to field a full team of Donovans, Conveys and DaMarcuses. Let's be honest, how much better would the US team have been if Chris Armas had been in the middle of the park to disrupt the Argentine attack? What if Eddie Pope were there in place of Danny Califf? Consider Ryan Suarez at right fullback, Ben Olsen in his correct spot at right wing, Santino Quaranta up top, Wade Barrett (until recently a member of MLS) at left back and a central midfield combo of Bobby Convey attacking and Chris Armas defending. We might still have lost, but it wouldn't have been nearly so easy for Argentina. Bruce experimented. It's a neccessary thing to do during friendlies so we learn things about our team for the important games. But it doesn't mean that the team will be quite as effective. So no, the sky is not falling. MLS coaching is doing surprisingly well! Say what you like, but there are a hell of a lot of national teams out there that would have lost to that young Argentina team. The fact that we did, doesn't imply that our US coaches are doing poorly. BTW, do you realize how few MLS coaches and former coaches are actually born in the US? Just a sampling, Sigi - Germany, Hudson - England, Nicol - England, Yallop (England/Canada), Rongen - Holland, Clavijo (not US, but not sure where), Bradley - US, Sarachan - US, Arena - US. I dunno man, but the US born coaches sure don't seem outclassed to me. -Tron
At the start of his post EscoDU01 talks about how we have been developing talent in this country and the up and coming players. And then he talks about bringing top foriegn coaches here. Why shouldn't we be developing our own coaches? I think we will be better off developing our own top coaches then bringing in someone from Italy or Argentina who is only going to be here for a couple of seasons and then leave when something better comes along. I think we're past the stage where we need to bring in "experts" to teach us the game. And just to point some things out, Sigi was born in Germany, but pretty much grew up here. You could say the same for Gansler. I think what's more important then where you were born, is how long have you been in this country and your understanding of soccer here. The only current MLS coach who hasn't spent a lot of time here would be Nicol and he did spend 2 years in the USL.
Tron's right on. You don't fix technical problems at 25 years old. You fix them between 10-15 years old. Wanna know what's going to put us on the map with Argentina? Dallas Burn U17, DCU U17, Colorado U17, Metrostars U17, Galaxy U17, San Jose U17, Fire U17, Crew U17. Train all of those teams(that don't exist yet)year round, and that's when we start creeping up to Argentina's and Brazil's levels. Foreign coaches aren't necessary for that, just simply some vision and willing to reallocate resources. Is it any coincidence that all of our future superstar players(Convey, Donovan, Beasley) have come from this U17 year round training. Let's put 2+2 together, that's what is going to make us a soccer power and put MLS more on par with the European Big Four(EPL, Serie A, La Liga and Bundesliga). If USSF would help out and step up with the greenbacks, IMHO we could have a system like this. And the kids wouldn't have to leave home like they do now.
I agree with Tron and Wanderer except I'm not sure technical problems aren't fixed at ages 4-10. What did Adu just say recently? He missed coming home from school in Ghana and playing 6 hours straight 'til the sun went down out on the street. I haven't seen the kid play but it sounds like he's got the "technical skills" we all crave American players to have, and he didn't get them playing with the U-11s (I don't think) for his (American) club team, he got them kicking the ball in the street in Ghana when he was 7 and 8. Of course, this is a judgment based from afar.
Supposedly technical skills develop all the way up until 12 or 13. At this point it's supposedly difficult for a player to learn new moves and his current technical skill level begins to fossilize. With how amateur the game is here I think it happens at a later age with most U.S. players. If a player puts in extra time in this aspect, even adult players can improve their technical skills(Cobi Jones anyone?). I think we'll all agree though that they're much easier to acquire at younger ages.
You guys are going overboard on ages. 4!!!!? Jeez. Give me and the tykes a break. Can't improve past 12 ? Ditto. I've done to much using the Coerver system not to be able to say kids can be taught and pickup quite a bit technically even in HS. I even got this old bod to change a bit when I was still playing. FYI Queiroz stated there was nothing wrong with our system up to 12. Where we are missing the quickest payoff is between ~14 to 18. Hours are another thing that's needed .IMHO Either Peter Wilt or Tim Carter (can't remeber which) sent me some info on hours overseas pro youth teams practice per week versus our own elite clubs . Our top clubs here in the US, U14 U16, are about 20-30% less, over 17, as much as 50% less than those overseas. Back to the original track. I'd love to see some more Latin coaches come in particularly as MLS gets more of it's own stadiums with proper width, and it's own youth teams.
Fair enough, but I think improving our post-12 system won't teach the kids the level of fluid skills on the ball that we see our neighbors to the south have-- unless they're playing for fun as kids. I would never go so far as to say that older kids can't improve (or that exceptional players couldn't develop the same level). I don't think the skill gap necessarily means we can't compete (like I said before, I've seen more individual skill on Guatemala than some of the first 11s the US has fielded, but we have no doubt a better team).
I defer to Dan who knows a trillion times more stuff about this than me. I tossed out the age of 4 out there in a highly arbitrary manner. I have no doubt we can significantly improve our technical skills between the ages 12 and, say, 19, or even much higher. Still, Adu's own comment stands out for me. Playing 6-8 hours every day after school, 'cause that's what they had a burning passion to do (and maybe there was nothing else to do?). For me, that's where he developed his core soccer self...or maybe better word, "touch". (Not that I've even seen him play, which I haven't. Just going on the hype.) Under "American" tutelage no doubt he's improved his tactical awareness, strength and a million other things, but that first touch which can separate oneself from the rest of the pack...sure, American coaches could sharpen it, but where did he first learn it? Again, I'm speaking out of pure ignorance, having never been a youth player or coach myself. But for me, the fact that the "next big thing" of American soccer played 6 hours a day while growing up in Ghana, speaks volumes.
Citing Adu may be wrong for several reasons; 1. He may be a protege like Pele. 2. Maturity in early teens. Typically you can see up to a 24 month difference in a 13-14 year old at either end for a 48 month old spread (why you never cut freshmen JV players if you can handle the numbers) Clearly he's on the upper end Think for a minute if he was on the lower end (11-12 body ) at 13. Would there be a fuss? 3. Sounds like he put in the hours. Which you'll note I emphasized. No correlation to what age a player learns other than one player who matured early. 4. I don't know if I know a trillion times more than Flash. All I know is youwant to do a move about a trillion times to get it right. :>) kpualsons comment on playing for fun as kids correlates with my citing Queiroz's comment as our system being OK up to 12.