FCD has been rostering in the neighborhood of 10 HGP plus draft picks each season for the past few years.
Dude, this has been true for years. It never guaranteed anything, but being that good for years and then it doesn't cross the bridge hints at something wrong further along in the process. I have said this before. A U20 team leading the region over and over should be playing out similarly as a senior team. If it doesn't, you are frittering away that U20 advantage. Curious people should ask why. I could get "well, no guarantees" if we missed tournaments, hit and miss, and one quarter team didn't turn out as hoped. But in a "tournament every 2 years" process the last tournament we missed was 2011, we have missed 3 tournaments since 1990, and we have failed to advance from the worlds group TWICE since 1990. 5 quarterfinalists in 16 years (8 tournaments). So why has the USMNT only achieved that level once, generally been marginal between a group round team or a round of 16 exit, and this last tournament not even qualified? Not saying we should win the world cup. But it's interesting when you make 3 straight quarters at U20 and meanwhile the NT can't even make Russia. Maybe there's a lag.
Three obvious reasons: 1) the confed allocation process and the player selection from the better FAs is different at U19/20 than it is a World Cup. There are only 10 UEFA/CONMEBOL sides among 24 teams at U19/20. There are 19 in a World Cup. Bigger in percentage and in number. More traffic to navigate. 2) the best players in the better FAs are sometimes going to be tucked away at clubs and out of attendance. 3) there are going to be hits and misses on every U national side as they transition to professional and international soccer. This favors the bigger FAs producing more talent. We can feel really good about 8 guys on a 23 player team in a 30-35 player pool. If there are disappointments in those 8 down the road, the remaining 22 doesn't provide a lot of wiggle room to secure additional players. France can produce 8 guys they feel good about on a 23 player roster in an 80 player pool. The odds of finding 3-4 more useful players outside the prized 8 is substantially higher. Especially because a decent number of really nice pieces are comfortable sticking with their club environments for the time being.
Fun fact! And Pomykal had gotten about what he deserved. He took a massive leap in the last six to nine months, as young players sometimes do. Durkin is stuck behind two pretty good CDMs. DC should probably give him more chances, from my opinion, but a lot of people think he should have to take the job.
the usa is frittering away its domestic talent. i don't see why people cannot see that if you spend a lot of money on bringing in a bunch of players from outside the country it is going to make it harder for the domestic players to develop. people think players will just become who they are regardless of the specific obstacles they are faced with. if the entire pool of 18-22 year old players has to beat out 50 DPs or 10 DPs...there's going to be many more players who "make it" when they do not have beat out more players in front of them. when opportunities are harder to come by...fewer players will be successful and "make it". it's just obvious. but people are in denial. I think a lot of people somehow assume that no matter who is in MLS and no matter who is around in MLS....whether or not a young player develops or not will be the same. these people think that if MLS allowed 11 DPs per team that the same number of domestic players would develop and that the overall player pool would be the same as it is now. they think that players are who they are and nothing will change it. it is ludicrous to me. the USA is not cultivating its talent very well.
When last season started Pax was stuck behind Mauro Diaz at the #10 position and Kellyn Acosta at the #8 position. Jacori Hayes played really well early in the season at the #8 position when Kellyn was out, so Pax was behind him too. When Mauro Diaz was sold, the staff gave him some starts at the #10 position. He played "OK." Didn't look out of place. But he also didn't really grab the bull by the horns and win the starting role for the rest of that year. They could possibly have gotten him more substitute appearances, though. FCD subsequently also traded two homegrown midfielders (Acosta and Victor Ulloa). That opened up playing time for Pax from the start of this season, and he took advantage of the opportunity. He beat Jacori Hayes this time. In fact, one could argue that Luchi Gonzalez built the team around Pax in that "free 8" role. You are exactly correct. Young players have to earn the playing time. Nothing is handed to them. But coaching staffs do need to provide the youngsters with the OPPORTUNITY to earn that playing time. Sometimes they show that they have more to work on, and sometimes they show they are ready for an increased role. Julian Araujo is really young, but he's showed the LAG staff that he's capable of doing the job. James Sands with NYCFC is another example. I go back and forth on Durkin. After the U20 World Cup, I'm not certain about him. I think he might be better off being converted to a CB.
to me it's a political argument. there is a pro free market pro capitalist set who in soccer terms believes in no salary caps and pro/rel and open rosters -- holding up an idealized europe as its template -- who wants the MLS product improved at all costs by increasing international slots, dps, and spending. but, as you note, they don't seem to care if american players are shoved out in the process, in reality. because in the abstract our players are supposed to have their games elevated in response. i see practical evidence most of our mls lineups are foreign. i see practical evidence of youth players who can't get time. or even pool players. i do not yet see the "invisible hand" payoff where our players are elevated by the process. i see marginal US players going to benches. i see last cycle's darlings like carleton picking up splinters. at least one effect of this is that historically while europe might be a lottery for playing time, we could bet upon domestic playing time. MLS is now starting to match Europe as a quality destination that cannot guarantee you minutes. which means most of our team is in lottery situations where they are well compensated but maybe or maybe not see the field. that has to impact the team, both in terms of veteran form and youth development. and it gives idiots like GB an excuse to bench or cut otherwise appropriate choices. i think we need to adjust the MLS roster rules back to make more room for domestic players including youth. you don't have to squeeze it completely off, just pull back to 3-5 internationals. maybe make a DP for US veterans or youth. maybe make a MLS or USL team of US prospects like we used to have. fwiw all these "free market paradises" they point to typically actually have some degree of protectionist roster rules. work permits for immigration. germany has rules. mexico has rules. i think you would still have 50000 people in seattle for games even under USOC limits. i think in the boomtowns they are gaga for soccer, period. i don't think The Market would actually care.....
what you need to consider is whether by setting the standard of play at the paycheck foreigner's standard, you squeeze out americans who might be decent -- but perhaps not the same -- if they got their shot. your argument could be understood as, american kid has to play to the level of rich veteran foreign star, out of the blue, to show his value. that is the circularity issue here, is you cannot pluck kids off the bench cold and expect tomorrow they play at the level of someone you buy for $5m. it basically becomes a situation where the foreign star dependency becomes self perpetuating. the american might get there from 3 years of investment. but if it's now, well, take your short cut. and when he leaves, take the short cut again. my point is this comes at a cost. once you start playing the elevated standard game anyone short of jozy coming back isn't going to meet it, it becomes a foreign paycheck player slot, and we are squeezed out. dallas does produce some high quality youth, and some join the senior team. but the mckennies skedaddle off to europe. i am not anti immigrant or that protectionist. i just think the pendulum has swung too far and needs to go back to a mid point. 5 foreign players. maybe 2 of them DPs. more room for americans. i know the snobbier soccer fan is like, you have to elevate your game to the new higher paycheck standard. i would be content to see that sort of short cut moderated and more americans get their chance. i do not like what the current approach does to the national team, or even to teams like my dynamo that don't have money. we have become uncompetitive at the highest levels and to boot depend on foreign talent to narrow the gap.
Sure...................but the teams that gave the most minutes to homegrown players last season all made the playoffs. [FCD, Philly, NYRB, RSL, SKC, etc.] FCD is giving a ton of minutes to young homegrown players. If the playoffs started today, FCD would be in them. And that's not just star youngsters, but squad rotation players too. Philadelphia is on top of the east right now, and they're starting Brenden Aaronson over much more highly paid veteran foreign players. He was very unfortunate not to be on our U20 World Cup team. Other youngsters as well. The Bundesliga does just fine developing domestic players while they have NO foreign player limits. The US will end up being the same. I don't think we need to be more protectionist. I'd note that with the ease of getting green cards, setting the foreign player limits higher doesn't really matter. Most of FCD's foreign players, like Colombian Michael Barrios, don't actually count as foreign players. There's nothing MLS can do about that. That's US labor laws. Half of the league has been founded since 2011. That's the issue. We keep expanding the league rapidly (with three more teams officially on the way, and St. Louis rumored as an imminent announcement as well.) So all of these new clubs are just figuring out what they're doing with their academies and domestic development programs. They're still figuring out what their first team culture is. LAFC did find a couple of players in the USL and the domestic MLS scrapheap. Had to trade a motherload to get Walker Zimmerman, and then they had to pay him 600k a year. Clubs can't just conjure up domestic talent. They have to develop it. That's a longer-term investment. LAFC has one of the best U15 program in the country, and are moving to the U17s this season. Build, build, build.
I don't know. There are many more roster spots available in MLS today than there were 10-15 years ago. The league is basically twice as big. And USL seems to be stable and growing, so there are even more spots available there. So, I don't think there's less opportunity today for a fledgling American soccer player to find a place to play.
Obviously, if you sign all of the player from outside the country and give no place for the domestic players to play it will stifle development. The old NASL did that but they still had a very positive impact on the soccer culture and many of the young kids that were 8-15 then are now part of the current soccer culture (which is still developing). The flip side of the argument is that if you don't bring in any outside talent, then it will negatively affect the ability to develop the domestic talent that it plays. The competition for spots will not be there, the competition of play will be far lower and the overall end product of the players will be lower. In addition, to raising the level, having a few of those really top level players (if they are the right ones) can be helpful to the young players they are exposed to. Those on the same team can receive guidance and those on opposing teams can learn from them by being schooled. It makes it a bit more clear where they stand or what they need to do to get to the next level. the happy medium is somewhere in between. Bring in enough top talent from outside but still leave enough room for the top young players. Now with the expansion of USL, it is no longer MLS or nothing for our 17-21 yr old players. We can now bring them along in steps. Finding the right mix is the real task and while some teams have started to narrow it down, the league on the whole is just learning and will get better.
I think you are far better off by using a carrot instead of a stick. 1. Expand the roster benefit of home growns to last longer and mean more 2. Drive marketing behind young players 3. Maintain or increase the relative benefit of selling homegrowns 4. Open up the homegrown territories to incent teams who traditionally don't have the talent base others do Forcing a massive roster change like people have here is a bad idea. For one, you legally can't differentiate between an American citizen and a person with a valid green card in the US in terms of employment, so it's tough to do. But just as important is the fact that you'd vastly reduce the quality of play. This lowers the quality of play that your young players compete against and learn from. It's going to lower the level of coaching you can get. It will lower revenues, which lowers salaries, which encourages young players to pick other sports. There's simply a better way.
Count me as not convinced that things are any worse for American players now than they were in the 10/12 team MLS era. Back then, in any given week there would be about 50-60 Americans in MLS starting lineups. Today, Americans make up a smaller percentage of MLS starters, but because there are more teams there are typically 80-90 American starters in any given week. At least for now, MLS is expanding faster than the American player pool is expanding. I'm not worried about talent dilution in the long run because MLS expansion comes with more academies, but in the early years of the academy system we have to expect that there will be fewer American starters per team as the league expands. As academies mature, we will see the percentage of Americans in MLS starting lineups rebound.
Liga MX teams pay, on average, twice as much for their players as MLS teams, in terms of wages. There’s no real magic to it. It’s like asking why Real Madrid does so well compared to other teams in La Liga. They buy their success.
The issue is not that the US-elligible players have dried up, but that they have dried up the most in some positions. MLS is not giving us any capable DMs, strikers, or LBs.
There are also quite a few more young US players in Europe compared to the past. many of those that are currently in Europe likely would have begun in MLS 1015 yrs ago and tried for a move after at least a year or two.
I would just say make the 5 foriegners uncapped...5 super DPs and then the rest domestic....that would be better than what we have now from a quality of play AND get more domestic players on the field.
I think the sheer # of players is way higher than it was though....the # of domestic players who would be on a maybe good enough for MLS is in the hundreds now.... so % it is not just a smaller % of players in MLS that are domestic...it is a much smaller % of "maybe good enough for MLS" domestics that are getting their shot.... and to me...it is a total crapshoot.....as to which ones are getting their shot....lets say there are 300 domestics that are maybe MLS level...it isn't the BEST 80-90 that are actually playing in MLS...it is a combo of the lucky/good ones.... I don't think the way most MLS teams look at the domestic pool and the roster/free agency rules of MLS leads to the cream of the domestic talent pool playing in MLS....how is Jeff Larenotiwcz the all-time minutes leader of doemstic players? MLS teams look to "worker bee types" to fill out and complement their lineups.....and beyond that MLS teams are not infallibel when it comes to making decisions on who to play and who not to.....I don't trust that they are truly picking the best 80-90 domestic players..... what it comes down to is how is the league cultivating the talent that it does have and could it be better?
Ok, ignoring for a moment that labor laws would open the other "domestic" slots to foreign players, let's say that it was actually doable... If I am building a team with 5 unlimited dp's I think I would probably sign a 1-2 strikers, 2-3 mids and a center back. so, depending on the formation the team uses there is very little room for developing young Americans in any role that isn't a piano carrier. Add on to that the fact that some of those piano carrier positions could be filled by foreigners with green cards......
speaking of coaching....look at the difference that Almeyda has made for the careers of wondo, thompson, yueill, lima, etc.... most of these guys looked left for dead last season. cultivating talent can mean just hiring better coaches that get WAYY more out of their players than others do. the same players can look wildly different under different regimes. as to player limits...tehy are arbitrary and can be adjusted....what is the foreign player limit for the NWSL? pretty sure it isn't 8.
so 8 intl slots leaves more room for development than 5 slots (all SUPER DPs)? i'm not buying it....for one all 5 DPs aren't playing every match....for two...1 defender 2 mids and a striker or 2 still leaves plenty of room for other players to shine, imo....if it didn't then 8 INTL slots definitely doesn't.
Part of the answer lies in the fact that any player that travels overseas will have fewer games than a good MLS player that stays in MLS and stays healthy. That being said, it is ironic that you are using Larenotiwcz as an example of how the current MLS is worse than the old MLS...he is on his last legs in the league and represents the old MLS more than the current.
If you have 5 super dp's (and pay them super dp money), they won't sit. That is a guaranteed 5 field players. The US players are more likely to be solid journeymen/role players that support the real stars. Right now, not all foreign players receive dp money, some of the foreigners play in somewhat less glamorous positions and some sit. All that being said, the real point is that due to labor laws and green cards, the number of international slots in MLS is all but irrelevant.
Yeah, it’s not at all uncommon for heavier import leagues outside the Big 5 (and England for that matter) to have relatively few domestic strikers, CAMs and DMs. We’re kind of in the same boat but at a lower level. Left back is a different story. Historical stereotype: naturally left footed, maybe not as strong technically, buying in to a more defensive mindset. As the game has progressed (and as MLS quality has improved), everyone is asking much more than that from LBs these days. So obvious candidates for the position at aged 15-19 aren’t the types the game requires when those same players are 24-27. I suspect that will change over the next two cycles for a couple reasons: 1) academies producing enough tactically and positionally flexible players. 2) the position can’t add many new demands.