MLS needs to start caring about the USMNT again

I can't believe MLS would let a team in that doesn't have an academy. It should be a prereq.

 

I lived in SW London for a period and within short walking distance were Chelsea, Fulham, and QPR. Within a tube ride, Arsenal, Spurs, West Ham, but also Barnet and others in lower tiers. Many of these teams had their own reserve and youth teams as well.

I say this because one solution to the issue is growth and that one can pick their poison per their wishes. No one beefs about who a reserve team fields there because you know it's a reserve team and it probably plays in a reserve team league, ditto age group teams up to the early 20s. You expect them to win but if you watch them in addition to or instead of the first team, it's an informed choice, and no one says they need to ship down 30 year olds and try and win more. In part because, if that's what you want, is teams playing to win, there's the parent club in the same town, probably within a mile or even at the same stadium, or all the other competing parent clubs some within walking distance, others a subway ride away, in a variety of leagues to suit your tastes. You can pay 100 quid and watch Chelsea. You can pay 5 quid and watch Conference.

We are only reaching any level of redundancy in a limited few big cities, and usually you have one choice in many towns. So it's a forced choice. And you want what you want even if it's not their priority.

That reflects newness but it also probably reflects England is 600 miles long and 270 miles wide, or so, at its extremes. If you don't like Notts County you walk down the street and root for Notts Forest, so to speak. People like to talk pro/rel and ambition about Europe but some of it is teams with different goals and concepts attractive to different people. Alongside the ambitious ones are many teams content to stay roughly in a spot and if they so happen to go on a run and get promoted, or relegated, so be it.

I also find an amusing parity subtext in the American belief their local team can beat anyone. As people chop away at parity they seem loathe to acknowledge the near-riotous celebrations that break out if some backmarker takes so much as a point from a big club. Really pursuing few restrictions tends to result in your local club being lucky to take a point in a particular set of fixtures on the schedule, unless you're the big dog. So to hear that espoused as a small dog theory is interesting.

 

I disagree. Guys like Dempsey, Holden, Cameron, Donovan, Beasley, McBride, Onyewu, Bocanegra, and I'm sure many others developed their game in MLS when the competition was not "decent" as you would define it. And, that was *before* all the teams had academies. Most of these guys came up in the terrible college system, joined MLS as older guys, and still were developed *in MLS* against not "decent" competition, and went on to start, and sometimes star, in Big 5 leagues.

You can throw Onyewu in as another success story.

Where are those guys now - who in the last 6-7 years has gone from MLS to start in a Big 5 league. Let alone star. And, in an offensive role? It's a joke to even throw that in.

You've got Adams. And, McKennie, but he left. If he'd stayed at Dallas would he even be playing? Maybe on the back line?

And, you can go way back to Yedlin, who to me, is like a generation ago.

The record shows that reducing the opportunities for U.S. players has caused the U.S. development engine to seize up.

 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-fútbol-with-grant-wahl/id999062153?i=1000430310329&mt=2

Is this the podcast? Because he doesn't say anything like that. The closest thing I could find is that they aren't targeting soccer "purists" defined as people who only care about international soccer and soccer at the highest level. That's just a very small part of the USMNT fanbase.

 

They're not going to invest in an academy until they know they're getting in the league. Most of the organizations didn't even have teams before they got into MLS, much less academies.

 

Is that cause or effect?

Has reduced development opportunities for early 20 years olds caused a decrease in quality American players ("the lost generation")?

Or has a lull in quality American players caused a reduction in Americans that age playing in MLS, thus making it look like development opportunities are lower?

How does the number of players going to Europe factor in? Did Emerson Hyndman leave to challenge himself or because he felt he'd get no opportunity?

I know this doesn't include late bloomers, but I looked at the 2015 U20 team and I struggle to see too many guys who didn't get a chance in MLS. Tommy Thompson, maybe? Bradford Jamieson IV? EPB fits the bill.

But for the most part, those MLS players played, and the majority of the talented players in that squad were already overseas.

2013? More US based players, but most of them seemed to have gotten time. I don't remember as much back towards 2011, but it feels somewhat the same.

Interestingly, 2017 players seemingly would be the ones to have more of an argument, but that story isn't as written.

And of course, this doesn't account for the possibility of late bloomers.

I can see your point, but I'm not sure the causality is there.

 

Wahl quoting a study commissioned by MLS regarding who MLS should target: "soccer enthusiasts, which are highly engaged soccer fans"
At this point Garber interjects: League soccer fans.
"fans seek quality over domestic players"
Garber: "the most important aspect is ... how do we grow our fanbase ...they (the fans) want to see us (MLS) measured referentially against Mexico, for example, .... they basically want to know that the league is better compared to some reference point. ..... That's where TAM came about. Fans are saying 'we need you to be better.' Who could we get better? We needed to go out an sign a bunch of players who could help the middle of our rosters....Players that could round out our rosters so that the overall quality improves......In Seattle, they'd rather have an MLS match than have a national team match."

I don't know how that can be interpreted as anything but, MLS doesn't care about developing players for the national team. They are interested in improving the quality of the league, vis-a-vis LMX. They are *not* seeking the fan that wants to see domestic players. Garber believes that (at least in Seattle) soccer fans would rather see the Sounders, than the MNT.

He specifically said, they're going after people who are "League Fans" as opposed to NT fans.

 

This is demonstrably untrue.

See Sacramento, San Antonio. I'm sure there are other MLS suitors with academies.

 

What's caused the lull? That's the question that's driving this thread. If things were hunky dory, it wouldn't exist.

Is it - MLS isn't working to play/develop U.S. players?
Or, is it that despite the sport growing in the U.S., vastly increased numbers of players getting vastly better training in the league, we're just in a down cycle for the quality of American soccer players. When you look at the comparison of the American players MLS *was* producing vs. the quality of American players MLS *is* producing, that would be a hell of a run of bad luck.

I go with Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is probably the right explanation. American players are getting squeezed out of MLS rosters by TAM players. Garber has said that he is catering to fans that don't care whether a player is U.S. eligible - the league doesn't care about developing American players, and it largely isn't.

It's backed up by the league's actions (TAM)
The commissioner's statements
And, the facts

Or, maybe we're just on a run of bad luck.

We've had guys go the Euro route in the past. Some have made it, some have washed out.

Even with the increased number of young guys going Euro we have now, with all the academies/teams in MLS, I'd bet it's a smaller percent of the young player pool now than it was 10-15-20 years ago.

 

[

I understand the logic.

Here's the thing, though. A ton of our better prospects went the European route in that time (or were already there). And the success rate of players like Hyndman, Gooch, Gyau, Rubio Rubin, Devesio Payne, Gedion Zelalem .... the rate of success of these players isn't any better.

The successes in that time frame are players like Brooks (Europe all the way), Yedlin (MLS --> Europe), Miazga (MLS --< Europe), Steffen (Europe --> MLS --> Europe), Aaron Long (USL--> MLS), and so on.

I don't know that you are entirely wrong, but there's counter evidence there.

Perhaps we just do need players to get PT, period, regardless of the level of play, and so in the future, it won't just be MLS that fills that gap but USL.

I just struggle to list the high potential players that MLS clearly held back. And I don't see that the part of the generation that left to go to Europe over MLS developed at a better rate.

Nowadays, our most elite attackers are going directly to Europe. There's a slew of next step down prospects getting PT -- Mihailovic, Ebobisse, Toye, Vazquez, Ferreira, Pomykal (if you count him), Thomas Roberts and Pepi and AOC getting Cup minutes, Efrain (if you count him), and so on. Brian White at NYRB.

Hyndman and Parks have come back to get time in MLS as well.

I guess I don't see the need to "dumb down" MLS to get Americans time. The new focus on development and selling seems to be doing a decent job of it, and more inducements seems like a smarter move than dragging down the quality of play.

If the quality of play is too high in MLS, then the player can go to USL. And if the quality of play is too high there, they aren't making a USMNT anyway.

Frankly, I don't expect to get much of the USMNT from someone playing in MLS at 24+ anyway, in the long run.

 

The USMNT's recent failures are wholly of its own making. The USSF would love nothing more than to have both teams be highly competitive.

 

You are wearing tinfoil.

 

As I said before, with the numbers of teams/academies in the US/MLS now, I'd bet that the % of young Americans opting to go abroad is lower than it was 10-15-20 years ago. Losing players to Europe is not an excuse.

And, Parks is only playing in cup matches. Would either of those guys have gotten minutes in MLS if they'd stayed here?

"If the quality of play is too high in MLS, then the player can go to USL." As is discussed elsewhere in the thread, they can't. Teams don't release them to play in USL. BradfordIV and Villareal rotted on the Galaxy bench. And, USL is pretty abysmal. Ya, USL teams win the occasional cup match against MLS teams - but not when MLS teams are rolling out anything close to their 1st team.

I bet USL isn't the equivalent of League 2 in the UK. How would your average USL team do against Yeovil (last in League 2 last season)? Not well, I'd bet.

 

Success in the U20 WC does not really correlate to senior team success worldwide. Some teams do, some don't.

I totally admitted that, but it's really hard to determine "people that could have been late bloomers but weren't.

I don't think that's true right now. I'm seeing a lot of Americans get chances. Not everyone, and not all of them, but worldwide, not every club plays its young players without reservation.

There's been a mentality change and a quality change across a lot of the teams.

Proven? Or just overall quality?

And why is it that everyone wants young players to go to Europe where they can be challenged and have to earn their spot and that's what makes them great?

And in the US, they must be gifted spots by limiting the quality of competition. Honestly, if a player in their early to mid-20s can't break into an MLS or USL roster .... are they good enough anyway?

Having better foreign players obviously increases competition for Americans. But I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

And if it isn't a bad thing, why do so many people want our best young players to head right away to Europe?

In every country in the world, there are generational highs and lulls in talent. I don't know why the US would be an exception.

And if MLS is the key problem, why did the players who went to Europe in that generation not pan out, either?

Huge? I admit it would be tough for a LAFC youngster to grab Carlos Vela's spot ... but I don't think you have to be great to steal time from most of these $1-2M TAM players.

I think young players need PT. But I don't think trying to make your national league substantially worse is productive for a variety of reasons.

But they haven't. Perhaps maybe a few years ago; I'm not going to argue the past.

But look around -- there's a renewed focus on player development.

Tata came to MLS in large part because of Atlanta United's ambition and because of their plan to buy players like Miguel Almiron.

If the level of quality of player in MLS is lower, the better coaches won't come.

How is that an argument for lowering the quality of their teammates?

Static values? Hardly. Again, I think your info is out of date. There's been a huge increase in academy investment, in U20 playing time and also in some of the older ages.

Teams are realizing that TAM is nice but $1M players aren't necessarily all that.

I love Long, but he is a rarer and unique case -- an attacker, who converted, worked his way from USL.

But the same league you claim doesn't provide a path for Aaron Long ... provided a path for Aaron Long.

I think more PT for more young American players is a good thing.

But you can do that multiple ways. You can create incentives to do so, financially, though sales of players and through cap relief, etc., without lowering the overall level of the league.

That way, the players get better teammates, opponents, competition and coaches. It's harder to get PT, but it's better for the player in most other ways.

Or you try and bring the level DOWN in the league. Less coaches are interested. Teammates and competition is worse. Revenues go down with quality of play, meaning investment overall is reduced.

The vision for MLS as a development route should be an improved MLS, not a degraded, reduced MLS that functions as a kindergarten.[/QUOTE]

 

My point was that the players who did go to Europe also did not pan out.

If MLS was the problem, then wouldn't the hit rate have been higher for those that didn't go?

I mean, that's a hypothetical. So who knows?

But my point was more this: if Keaton Parks can't get time overseas, we assume he's simply not that good.

If Jose Villareal can't get a spot on the Galaxy, it's because the Galaxy are holding him back.

Sometimes the players simply aren't very good.

I can't tell what you are arguing here. I think your USL point is kind of my point -- I simply don't think these guys were ever good enough.

I'm not defending the Galaxy -- they were slow to play their young guys.

But I don't think this is nearly as simple as "MLS stop playing youngsters; that's why we suck" and "we should force MLS to play Americans even if they suck."

 

The federation has always been a barely competent den of mismanagement, cronyism and nepotism. But, the one thing they love is the income that the national teams provide when they're successful. And, as long as the teams are successful, nobody asks awkward questions about reforming the federation. I don't see any reason why they would sabotage that.

 

I'm not following this argument. All the MLS teams have USL affiliates or outright own USL teams. The rosters of those teams are full of development players and marginal players who may or may not crack the gameday 18. So, if the quality of USL is so low, that's a reflection of the level of those players.

 

That's a super recent development. Hopefully it will mean a rise in the level of USL.

Up until just the last couple of years, MLS kept guys on their rosters that were never going to play, that could have gone to USL. But, since everyone was doing it, USL sucked. If Galaxy had Villareal, BradfordIV, McBean, and maybe others, playing in USL, and all the other MLS teams were doing the same, USL would be better. Maybe it will get better now.

As an aside, Carleton should be shipped off to USL - but that's a Carleton topic, not for this thread.




It's a reflection of the fact that MLS keeps guys in their squads that they aren't going to play, that would improve the quality of USL. You could send Villare

 

Pulisic panned out. Wood has been decent. Gyau certainly panned out until he got hurt. That's 3 starter caliber players from a fractional portion of the pool.

I'm guessing that Sargeant and a few other of these U-20's will come good.

I don't think that's true it all. He had one mediocre appearance in a friendly while riding pine in Portugal and he people were singing his praises. Not sure what your point is, but your statement isn't true.

See my post #271

 

McKennie as well too. All that poster does is cheerlead for MLS.

I’m guessing that the wave of u20 and u17 players who have chosen to go abroad and not sign with MLS will further continue the success shown most recently by Pulisic and Weston.

 

How is Pulisic or Sargent relevant?

We were referencing the so-called "lost generation" -- the group in the mid and late-twenties who haven't brought much to the national team.

Neither Pulisic or Sargent is in that group.

Gyau played 66' in the Bundesliga. His injury was awful and perhaps he would have made it. But he didn't make it.

Regardless, my point isn't that going to Europe is worse than MLS. It isn't. The competition is obviously better and it's probably the better choice for many of our best prospects. But that wasn't my point at all.

It was merely that the evidence doesn't suggest that MLS not giving opportunities was the key cause of the lost generation.

If that were true, then we wouldn't have seen the well dry up on the European side as well.

 

All of those Galaxy players played for Los Dos (LA Galaxy 2) in USL..............Carleton has been getting playing time for Atlanta United 2 in USL as well..........

Parks has been getting increased minutes in MLS league games, and has in fact started the past few for NYCFC.................if you actually watched and/or paid attention to the league you would know this.

Currently there are 313 American Born players in MLS, and 364 foreign born players.