Actually I agree with you on Cherundolo, though it wouldn't be reasonable to argue that he was ever equal in ability or impact to Landon, say, and he is one of our two best products of Europe ever. As far as the rest, sure, it's a numbers game, and the numbers thus far have netted us nearly nothing. Given what we have in the US right now, I'm not at all sure that Europe will net us anything more than the domestic set-up will. Regarding that crowd you refer to, Pulisic is the only one that is truly looking like a real "next level" star for us. Zelalem has a chance, but it's an outside chance at best at this point. Hyndman might turn out to be a Cherundolo-level guy at very best, but not the level of player that we've never had before. Rubio's ceiling is quite a bit lower than that; he might be a good player but he'll never be a CL player. CCV is still young enough and athletically gifted enough to envision that he could be, but he has many hurdles yet to clear before that becomes imminent, and how much more has Spurs truly done for him than Red Bull has done for Miazga?
Of course. And I believe that MLS and the USMNT will improve as those "better players" get/stay in MLS. And all playing against one another and making everyone better. An improving MLS certainly helps the full USMNT pool improve.
Understood - if you were a Brazil fan, you would want Neymar, etc. to play domestically. I simply disagree.
Whatever the quality of their domestic leagues, only two nations in the Americas, since 2002, have WC records that are better than the US'. Across those WCs and including the '09 Confederations, the US has gotten results against Portugal, Italy, Spain, England, Portugal, Ghana, all of which were stacked with more UCL players than what the US rolls with. Most of the money in football is in Europe, so there one finds most of the top players. UCL is not some magic incumbator of top players; most the top players simply go to Europe, and the very best play in the UCL KO rounds. UCL participation is a signifier of quality not a creator. The US' WC and CC record indicates the team don't need to be laden with UCL players to continue seeing improvements to the pool.
Not sure I'd care where any specific/individual player plays. As a Brazilian, I'd want my domestic league to be as strong as it can possibly be. As an American, I do want MLS to be as strong and as good as it can be. I want talented players, like Neymar and Morris as examples, playing in MLS.
Europe didn't improve Jozy Altidore. Donovan did ok without Europe. On the other hand, a player like Powers would likely be better off getting away from Colorado.
Yes, look at Campbell at Arsenal. He will be playing for Costa Rica against us. He wasn't much of a footballer until Welbeck and Sanchez go injured and he took his chance at Arsenal and is making a tremendous case by taking advantage of the skill around him. His game has changed considerably.
That's incredibly debateable. He's always been a considerable talent. That he's on a loaded roster and "struggles" to get consistent minutes with his club doesn't mean he was not "much of a footballer" or someone who represents his NT very well (and/or is a bit dirty and a diver) and is a real handful in Concacaf and helped CRC make a run at WC2014.
I would say that the US' performance shows that one can make the WC knockout rounds but not go further without UCL players. Again, there is a direct correlation between WC semi/quarter finals teams and how many UCL minutes played so unless that changes, we need to have those types of players to make it to the next level. I personally don't care where they develop their game but do believe that the European academies are a better route for now as they offer the best chance of developing talent. I strongly disagree that we should hold back any of our players so that MLS can improve faster. If chicharito was American, I'd still want him at BL rather than MLS.
So on one side we have LD and on the other we have JOB, Cherundolo, Subotic, Rossi, and all the best player of our current u- teams, with the exception of Miazga and Morris.
No. You've also got Dempsey (a rare one who actually did thrive in Europe, but was wholly developed in America) and all of the GKs except Keller. (And even of the U-team guys you're referring to, the only ones with any track record of note against adults are still Miazga and Morris at this point.) And it's ridiculous to claim either Subotic or Rossi, both of which were raised quite significantly in Europe and had little to do with US Soccer. Essentially, there isn't a strong argument that the best Americans fare better in Europe than they do in America. There is a very strong argument, however, that no country that ever becomes a great powerhouse by farming out their development program, and it's silly to base a national strategy on such a thing that we have no control over. Overwhelmingly, with few exceptions, they develop their own players. Only the African nations regularly violate this, and not only are such nations poor analogs to the US, no African nation has ever honestly been a true soccer powerhouse. Not Ghana, not Ivory Coast, not Nigeria.
His best performances were frequent and consistent all the way up to that foot injury. I don't believe it's a coincidence.
There is nothing silly about a strategy that says our players should play at the highest level possible and acknowledging that MLS has a long way to go to match that level. The best training programs in Europe are better both in tactics and have significantly more competition than those in the US, both things that I think are important to developing talent. If our players haven't been able to crack the upper echelon of global teams, I believe it's because we aren't demonstrably better than their other options.
It's a little of column A and a little of column B IMO. We do not have world class players that clubs are in a bidding war to secure but there is also a very real bias against American soccer in general. Consider the fact that our players and league compare fairly well to say Sweden, Denmark, etc. Why then don't you see more success by American players in Europe? There are many reasons.
Both Subotic and Rossi were also raised quite significantly in the US. Subotic moved here when he was 11 and played for our U-17 / Bradenton while Rossi was born in NJ and moved to Italy to develop as a soccer player when he was 12! They both left the US to train in Europe. The fact remains that they are both Americans who were developed significantly here in the US and then went onto european academies where they excelled beyond every other American field player. Our inability to convince them to play for us is irrelevant to the point of Americans developing in Europe.
I think that's there's always a bias against foreigners in any league and you have to be demonstrably better to get time. Which players do we really think got screwed? McBride, Reyna, Bradley, Dempsey, Keller, friedel all did well over there but it's hard for me to say that they deserved a starting spot on Barca, RM, ManU (Howard!), etc. Thanks.
Apart from everything else, Rossi and Subotic were not "foreigners" in Italy and Germany respectively. That changes the calculus entirely. What I'm arguing against is the notion that in order to best develop, our best players which ARE foreigners in such leagues need to be sent there to develop because they're "the best." The events of the past decade should disabuse anybody of that notion. At best, even for our very best players and prospects, we're talking about a case-by-case basis, full stop.
I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying... But, that doesn't mean MLS is making the best business decisions, and if they are not, it will take longer to achieve that goal. Why does MLS not care about how soccer operates in the rest of the world? It seems like they should care a lot as it is their stated goal to be atop of that system. That's reasonable they want that, but they have to throw money at it and/or develop that special talent. I not sure asap is the best approach. I'd probably state it as asap as long as not cutting corners to sustainability of developing talented players. I really think we (MLS) needs to learn how to jog before running. This is the disconnect in the idea of the national team having a responsibility to support MLS. It's a two way street. If MLS is going to operate solely as a business (i.e. In their best interest), why shouldn't US soccer do the same? I don't see MLS reaching their goal in the next 10 years and don't believe Garber thinks for a second that they will be there by 2020 or 22 or whatever he stated. So why not focus on the attainable things over that period, and specifically on developing players and transitioning them into teams when they are 18 to 22. They can sell the top players and put that back into higher salaries. The price they get of $4m today will become $8m in 5 years. Continue to bring Bradley's and demspeys back as DPs over time.
Of course it is a two way street. Of course MLS should operate in a way that also helps US Soccer. And the league certainly is doing that, in many ways. Or is MLS sitting there telling guys like Fagundez or Najar or Nagbe or Tchani or Miazga that they should go and play for some other NT?
Rarely? Let's see - who flourished in Europe? Dempsey O'Brien Holden Onyewu Howard Freidel Bedoya Edu F. Johnson Johannsson Altidore Bradley Berhalter Mix Sasha Ream Williams Wood Brooks Cherundolo The idea that US players "rarely" "flourish" or do well in Europe is just a myth. US players in Europe have the same kind of up and down career that MLS players have in MLS. I think which league a player plays is a bit over-weighted. It is more important to be playing in a system that supports them with a good coach and a good match for the skill set.
The league does a lot of good. The area that I'm not sure they think enough about is developing players to play in hypothetical top league in the world. If they don't develop them, then it will be all foreigners playing. I don't know if they are telling them anything. I'd also, not really care... Especially if it helped them make a lot of money and they put it back into the league.
Hard to know. It certainly is a slow process, even if MLS sets agressive/unrealistic timelines for their stated goals. Certainly the league itself and certain teams within it aren't that old. And the club academy systems are even younger. And the league's initiatives to have every club get a USL affiliate (as a place for young players to get more minutes) is even younger still. This is all an evolving mission for MLS.