This will evolve. As MLS teams get better in total talent, and competition for MLS Cup, CCL, etc., gets tougher, more MLS teams will act like European teams and not release first team players for youth tournaments. It's inevitable. Also inevitable will be MLS clubs getting more and more internationals and evolving to a schedule where FIFA breaks are completely off, allowing for less concern for MLS teams about players missing games ... leading the pendulum back the other way for generally more allowance of players in youth teams. Change like this takes time and has growing pains.
I also see a potential catch 22 where a series of pre-tournament friendlies where we identify available, overlooked players, feeds back to the club teams who then perhaps pay the better looking ones more interest, and then they disappear off the board for Olympic quali. At which point you need to ask yourself is the goal finding potential senior players in the age group team, or gelling a second rate side the clubs will release. If the goal is finding senior-potential players, then who cares if the team qualifies, or their club side becomes more interested and makes them less available. if the goal is winning, the ever-increasing professionalization of US soccer will only make it harder and harder at U23. in terms of the convergence argument, we weren't much into buying and selling players until the beckham era. we might even release a player to go try there. we have now converged with europe on transfers. we will get money for players who want to transfer there, even the small fry. i don't think you will get pro/rel, or it will be done within a split MLS pyramid once they pass 30 teams. i don't think we will play winter games in toronto and minnesota. but in many other ways that make sense you will see convergence. that will include areas like this where historically we have been lenient.
Note....................there's no such thing as UEFA U23 championships. Why not? The answer is self evident. Its kind of a weird level. U23 players in the rest of the world aren't "youth players." They're first team adult professionals. That's the reason we accept we're not going to get these players released from Europe, and with every cycle MLS teams have been more reluctant to release their players. It seems like we've finally reached a cycle in which some MLS clubs are saying "no mas." And its a great problem, right? In both Europe and MLS, our "best" U23s are deemed too important by clubs to release from their first teams. They should be!!!
to me it reflects a couple things. some of the big stragglers like the USA have professionalized, when before 1996 you would have had college ball as an 18-23 transition before they could even go pro. for most. and for a while after the league started. second, a lot of smaller countries that used to be semi-pro or amateur now have a pro league eg Trinidad. so the same thing at a smaller level for them as well. so you have a combination of less access and training for us, and also the other teams around us are turning pro too. the latter is part of our senior team problem too. used to be the back end of the hex and on down you'd start playing teams that had to import pros, domestics were semi-pro, maybe a guy or two in MLS. we're now to the point where curacao can field a MLS keeper, several Dutch players, etc. Trinidad beneath the imports has a domestic league. if we put a foot on a banana peel there are more teams at sufficient level to help us fall. i grant that uefa qualifies at a different age than the olympic age, but they also do so well ahead of the olympic year. it's like when MLS used to send teans to CCL the fall AFTER they did well. so give or take a year U21 qualifying for U23 a year later isn't that wacky. and my point is GB, Germany, some of the UEFA countries don't compete or suck at the last age group and it's basically no barrier to success at all. i think U20 down matters. i am not convinced U23 does.
I can see Garber stepping in and calling the clubs to a meeting. Qualifying to the Olympics would showcase MLS to casual viewers.
If Olympic qualifiers are so important to Don and MLS, then maybe the league shouldn't schedule MLS games during them...............? The idea that players aren't going to be released for this isn't a surprise. I've been watching these Olympic qualifiers for a long time. Way back in 2004 we couldn't get players like Connor Casey and Gooch released. Any good national team program would have spent the last three years preparing for this eventuality and casting a wide net. In our federation's infinite wisdom, we didn't even hire a coach for the team until a year prior to the qualifiers. And Kreis is part-time because he works for Inter Miami and their USL affiliate Fort Lauderdale. So yes, everybody on this board could have and should have seen this coming.
No. That's right. What I'm just saying is that this isn't new. Having trouble getting players released from clubs for these Olympic qualifiers isn't new. Now, 20 years ago we only had trouble getting a small number of players. But now in 2020 we already knew that getting Pulisic, Weah, Adams, McKennie, Sargent, Dest, and on and on wasn't going to happen. For some reason folks don't see MLS clubs as soocer clubs that take their results just as seriously as those European clubs. They have just as much right to block callups as those European clubs. So now in 2020 we've finally gotten to the point that some MLS clubs are saying no. Its actually a good thing.
Well, the way I see it is that MLS had been fully behind youth international soccer as a way of promoting the league. This no longer seems to be the case. I'm neutral as to whether this is a 'good thing'.
not that theyre mutually exclusive, but id prefer mls get behind us youth internationals by playing them (outside of the handful of clubs who have for a while now).
MLS is not going to be taking off time for age group regional qualifying. Nor do I think that unchecked the general direction of things is towards facilitation. I think if MLS HQ didn't like this direction, they could bend it back some. But as-is, you're starting to see an increasing "European first team" attitude towards player release from MLS. You're going to start getting resistance on starters for sure and perhaps even depth. If we're really being practical, USSF could push for this qualifying tournament to be held in either the preceding summer (Europeans off) or the preceding winter (MLS, Mexico, and maybe certain Europeans on winter break). OFC qualifies before A-League season in the year before (I know Oz has moved to Asia, but many of their players play there, and Wellington is an important employer of Kiwis). UEFA qualifies in the prior summer. Nothing says we have to qualify in March or April right before a July tournament. You solve part of the release problem by moving qualifying outside of at least one of the calendars. In fact, the sensible approach on our part would be to have it in summer for UEFA players, and then arm twist MLS where players under an appearance or minutes threshold must be released, and starters are optional. If not, December or January. That gets you MLS and then maybe UEFA age groupers plus winter break Germans. Maybe. The current schedule makes almost every player except maybe some Scandis into a regular season release. Maximizes your problem. I do think between this issue, Bradenton being dismantled in favor of MLS academy power, January camp release, and the ever-growing international slots, I get the giggles when people talk about MLS and USSF as in league on the USMNT and biased in favor of MLS. I said my piece yesterday on the meaning of it all. I think the value of qualifying for this tournament is limited, like winning USOC. I think if the calendar stays the same, it's begging the question on working with your best U23s versus working with available U23s, and I think it's more valuable to see the players with more promise, even if they can't play the tournament. I also think you could resolve or at least ameliorate the problem with the calendar solution. I assume Gold Cup is played in the summer for a reason.
There was a subtle offseason nudge on U23 players by MLS, in terms of encouraging their acquisition. The cap charge is now smaller for a U23 DP. However, that is not limited to Americans, and encouraging signing them is not the same as releasing them to play youth tournaments. I looked at the squad lists for CONMEBOL's qualifying and a lot of teams had MLS people. That was an offseason tournament for many MLS. However I do wonder if there is some hypocrisy or inconsistency there. It would not be pretty PR if you let South Americans play their tournament "because offseason" but then get stingy on the US of A "because season." Even if there is a rational distinction to be made there.
I was thinking about this last year and I know at least one issue I had was an apparent pattern of MLS teams using USL to stash overage internationals when you are at your MLS limit. The question prompted to me was are the USL affiliates development teams or are they AAA. If you wanted to force this in a developmental direction you could say that, like Germany does, that U23 affiliate players could be moved up and down easier than overage players. Or make our affiliates into explicitly U23 teams like PDL's main premise. The rest of USL could field 30 year olds if they want, but we commit to development. I do know I don't quite see the value in a bunch of 25+ age (particularly foreign) guys down on our Dynamo farm team. We had Salazar on the farm team last year older than the forwards on the first team. What is the point to that. He's not just a worse player -- useless when I've seen him play first team -- but he's older than the people he's in line behind. It's not like they get older and he grows into their roles. He's older and worse. This is just stashing.
Just like in Europe, every club is going to have a different policy. For instance.................I think Atlanta's statement now applies to everything. So they won't be releasing Miles Robinson, but they also won't be releasing Ezequiel Barco. They've chosen to be ornery apparently. Its also just a matter of timing and need for other clubs. FCD has Servania and Acosta out injured from their midfield. Ferreira and Pomykal called up to the U23s. Thomas Roberts called up to the U20s. Now...................can they also release Tanner Tessman to the U20s? Probably not, seeing as they need to actually field a team with a midfield in the month of March. They do need somebody to play. You can't release the entire team. You don't want to PUNISH the teams that play a lot of USYNTers by always poaching them for tournaments and youth friendlies. You don't want MLS clubs to sign a bunch of mediocre 27 year old Colombians just because they'll always be available. So there has to be a middle ground in this club/country debate. The federation and the clubs have to generate a positive negotiation. A team like FCD has to say to the USSF "you can have Tanner Tessman for the U20 CONCACAF Championships this spring, but we need him for the MLS games in March. We can't release him for the camp in Portugal"
It's interesting to note that during JK's tenure, MLS whinged like little punks when they felt their players weren't getting deserved NT call ups. Think the way forward would be to get rid of qualifying tournaments. The format could be changed to that of qualifiers that take place during FIFA windows.
That would be another way. There would be too many teams to resolve it in a single table, but you could hold a series of quali home and aways on international dates. Europe is off, MLS slackens and respects the windows. Then either the group winners qualify directly or a final set of eliminations on a last international date. This is an interesting idea. I think UEFA does this for the group round of their quali -- but they have broader participation to justify. One downside being, you are then on one team or the other, for most of the duration. This is less a big deal for someone like GB who has dumped a ton of U23s down and left them in age group. But if you had a more JK-approach then if every game is NT friendly vs U23 quali, this cuts against your instinct to experiment. Pulling U23s up to senior team when they have a friendly is harmless. Pulling them up if they have a quali pair impacts that team. Also, the more elaborate or early U23 contests are, you will then create a push for an even longer U23 period. If we play a year before the quali now, and then we either move quali earlier or create a lengthy group round, there will then be pressure to have prep friendlies before that. Depending what you think of U23, and what access is, even more U23 games are either great or water torture. Personally I like the isolated tournament because it's a couple weeks then it's over. If I don't want to spend time on these players beyond that, I don't have to. I want the focus on the senior team. I don't want a U23 team that encourages first team conservatism, dump all the kids down. I want the kids who can help the senior team identified and graduated out. I mean, one thing no one's brought up is this is basically an international date with slight sticking out at the edges. I suggested threatening senior calls on reticent teams. OK, you won't release him on U23, he's called for seniors, and if healthy you have no choice, so why not let him go for U23 for maybe a week more? Conversely, if you were in a pugilistic mood, anyone you were considering for U23 that gets pushback is on the senior team same window. Honor the literal extent of the denial then make them an offer they can't refuse. So much of this gets discussed in terms of cultivating team relationships, but it's like I'm not sure when the supposed payoff on that ever is. There is a reason FIFA put in rules, is clubs started to abuse this. On a lot of these players if they're not with the kids they should be with the seniors just the same. There's only x% of the U23s who are basically only age group ballers at the moment. If they push back on CCV or EPB we could use NT center backs too, for example.
Imo, creating a cohesiveness starting at age-group level would be a good thing. Age-group qualifiers would be a nice step in this regard.
To me it should be, as discussed above, a minutes per game or starts per season threshold. Well, technically the first hurdle should be if you even have a game. If you have no game MLS should say, "release." If you have a game, it should then be an objective standard where if you're not used enough, we assume you're not needed and you're released. If he's an everyday starter that's one thing. If he has 10 minutes for the season, you're exaggerating, you can find another sub for a week or two. You could also work on the scheduling issues by looking at the teams most likely to be impacted. Just like teams in CCL get some help. There are now more teams than U23 roster slots. You can probably talk to Kreis and sort out which teams will bear the brunt of quali tourney. OK, you're now scheduled on a bye week that period, release your people. They might have to play 3 games in 10 days later, but do they want their people or not.
Here's the thing, is who are you trying to cohere? I was suggesting there might be more value in the B team project than the available players project. Both would be cohering. One says, I will put my energy and chemistry work into the most likely first team candidates. The tournament team won't be cohered as well, but the international date players will be, and maybe I value spending time with them more than the guys released in March. Because my complaint is, calling in available players for prep makes sense as tournament readiness, but all that coaching and chemistry effort may be spent on some lesser players. Like I was saying yesterday where I didn't quite see the point in lineups yet, the more I like a player the greater the odds his team says no. I think there is more long term value in bringing in and cohering the leading U23s as opposed to the tournament available ones. That would perhaps pay off. They will get senior calls. But if I call Marcinkowski, Freese, Keita, de la Torre, etc., every time, work on their chemistry, while that might help at U23, they may or may not get a senior cap ever/again. Going back to January, the value of the player going to Qatar on a January trip relates in part to whether they could possibly be on a final 23 for a world cup. Same energy into Ochoa, CCV, EPB, Cannon, Richards, Llanez, Ledezma, Pomykal, Soto? I might see them again. But likely not in March in qualifying. I'd still spend my time on them instead. If you have to come up with an excuse, they are the Olympic team if we make it. I guess part of what I am saying is this is not a bad idea but the issue at U23 is whether it would be expended on the right players, who might see each other again at senior level.
I mean, take away olympics or the specific age group. You have a youth national team. They have a big tournament, have occasional camps, and play a scattered schedule other than that. I have players a, b, and c who have a schedule conflict on the big tournament but are superior players. I have players x, y, and z whose schedule is fine but they are worse than a, b, and c. even if the nominal focus of the season was Big Tourney, I would want x, y, and z in my camps before a, b, and c, because I want to cultivate and develop chemistry among the best kids that age, more than i care about the Big Tourney. to me if I buy into Big Tourney and shift my attention to a, b, and c, I have taken my eye off the ball. kind of like, why have i been seeing so much of aaronson and so little of the people who made U20 worlds and people thought were great. to me that's the availability distortion in a bow. you see 10 minutes of llanez and it's like why was i calling this other person? because they'd pick up the phone?
There's an amazing amount on conversation on this for something that hasn't happened yet. And as a counterpoint: Two teams are likely releasing key first team starters to qualifying in Jackson Yeuill and Reggie Cannon. These guys are as important to their teams as say, Sergino Dest is to Ajax. Actually more so, when you consider Ajax' depth usually. But it'd a real coup to get Dest for Olympic qualifying. If an MLS Club refuses to release a youth player, that's insane. But a legitimate first team starter? It's hard to be too angry. A backup? If it's anyone but an FC Dallas type -- where they might be releasing six people already -- I think it's unfortunate as well.
https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/20...2020-concacaf-olympic-qualifying-championship GOALKEEPERS (3): Matt Freese (Philadelphia Union; Wayne, Pa.), JT Marcinkowski (San Jose Earthquakes; Alamo, Calif.), David Ochoa (Real Salt Lake; Oxnard, Calif.) DEFENDERS (6): Reggie Cannon (FC Dallas; Grapevine, Texas), Justen Glad (Real Salt Lake; Tucson, Ariz.), Chris Gloster (PSV Eindhoven/NED; Montclair, N.J.), Aaron Herrera (Real Salt Lake; Las Cruces, N.M.), Mark McKenzie (Philadelphia Union; Bear, Del.), Erik Palmer-Brown (Austria Wien/AUT; Lee’s Summit, Mo.) MIDFIELDERS (6): Brenden Aaronson (Philadelphia Union; Medford, N.J.), Hassani Dotson (Minnesota United; Federal Way, Wash.), Richard Ledezma (PSV Eindhoven/NED; Phoenix, Ariz.), Djordje Mihailovic (Chicago Fire; Lemont, Ill.), Paxton Pomykal (FC Dallas; Highland Village, Texas), Jackson Yueill (San Jose Earthquakes; Bloomington, Minn.) FORWARDS (5): Jeremy Ebobisse (Portland Timbers; Bethesda, Md.), Jesús Ferreira (FC Dallas; McKinney, Texas), Jonathan Lewis (Colorado Rapids; Plantation, Fla.), Ulysses Llanez (Wolfsburg/GER; Lynwood, Calif.), Sebastian Saucedo (UNAM Pumas/MEX; Park City, Utah)
Frustrated by the disrespect Araujo has gotten across multiple levels, but this is a good selection overall, imo, and were fortunate to get a couple unexpected releases. GOALKEEPERS (3): Matt Freese (Philadelphia Union; Wayne, Pa.), JT Marcinkowski (San Jose Earthquakes; Alamo, Calif.), David Ochoa (Real Salt Lake; Oxnard, Calif.) DEFENDERS (6): Reggie Cannon (FC Dallas; Grapevine, Texas), Justen Glad (Real Salt Lake; Tucson, Ariz.), Chris Gloster (PSV Eindhoven/NED; Montclair, N.J.), Aaron Herrera (Real Salt Lake; Las Cruces, N.M.), Mark McKenzie (Philadelphia Union; Bear, Del.), Erik Palmer-Brown (Austria Wien/AUT; Lee’s Summit, Mo.) MIDFIELDERS (6): Brenden Aaronson (Philadelphia Union; Medford, N.J.), Hassani Dotson (Minnesota United; Federal Way, Wash.), Richard Ledezma (PSV Eindhoven/NED; Phoenix, Ariz.), Djordje Mihailovic (Chicago Fire; Lemont, Ill.), Paxton Pomykal (FC Dallas; Highland Village, Texas), Jackson Yueill (San Jose Earthquakes; Bloomington, Minn.) FORWARDS (5): Jeremy Ebobisse (Portland Timbers; Bethesda, Md.), Jesús Ferreira (FC Dallas; McKinney, Texas), Jonathan Lewis (Colorado Rapids; Plantation, Fla.), Ulysses Llanez (Wolfsburg/GER; Lynwood, Calif.), Sebastian Saucedo (UNAM Pumas/MEX; Park City, Utah)