Saying "a more experienced player doesn't necessarily make a better coach" is like saying (as some do) "a better athlete doesn't necessarily make a better player." IMO, these statements are true in cases, but should be false in the aggregate, ceteris paribus. You give me a Group A of 100 guys who played pro and a Group B of 100 guys who didn't, and control for everything else you reasonably could, and Group A should cumulatively be better. I appreciate the challenges involved in getting every MLS club to field a youth system with free participation and coaches with easily documented pro playing experience (and who may even be guys sme of these kids have already heard of and appreciate). But if MLS (with funding help from US Soccer, sponsors, or whomever) can get there, they should be able to either co-opt or defeat most of the competition most of the time. Chicago might be an exception. Salt Lake City will not be. In the interim, I'd really like to just see something that constitutes an improvement. FCD's agreement with Dallas Inter is a test case here. Inter was not the best youth club in the Metroplex at the time they joined forces, but it was fairly good, and it will be interesting to see where FC Texas (the new team name for the 'official youth affiliate' of FC Dallas) now goes in the next several years. FCD seems at least to be promising reduced fees for what you get, more access to pro players, and access to the best field complex in the area, soon to be home of the Dallas Cup as well. If MLS allows a rule for the club to retain any access at all to these players, it increases the likelihood that FCD (and anyone who can copy the model, which might include LA, Houston, KC, and maybe some others) will fully realize that more modest approach, and possibly expand upon it. That may not be what we're all looking for, but it will be good.
Me too. It would just take a little more commitment from the clubs to compete with any youth pro-development club. Really the only thing most top clubs don't do consistently is to provide international competition. That is because it's cumbersome and currently unnecessary. If/when it does become necessary, it can and will be managed just fine - and the youth clubs will get the transfer $$$. Don't be shocked.
Again, it's not *just* the time of the day. It's the customized subject matter for a *very* broad range of academic abilities that must all fit into the same schedule. It's also the large number of random (from the school's perspective) days missed that are totally different from the days missed by the school's normal populations. The FL public schools couldn't handle this.
No, I believe that the Residency kids practice once daily, for 2 hours. The 2 hour per day regime is pretty standard worldwide, for youths and adult pros, although yes it might be supplemented some days by fitness and/or strength training. I don't understand the whole customized curriculum thing. Why would soccer players need different classes than what a good high school normally offers? The idea that the kids need a private school because of the missed classes makes a bit more sense ... but not a lot more. Athletes at major sports in public universities miss a ton of class time. The universities & kids figure out how to make do. I'm sure that there are plenty of enlightened high school districts that would also figure out how to make do. After all, it would be something of a coup for a school district to boast that its high school educates the national youth soccer program. If one principal isn't smart enough to see the PR (and career-enhancing) value of that, another one will.
That depends. Are you looking for "trainers" or "coaches". The 200-career-goal striker might be a good trainer. Odds are, however, that so much of their success was natural ability that they don't/can't know how to pass it on to other players. Now, a 50-career-goal overachiever is probably a better trainer candidate. If you are talking about a "coach", someone who is able to plan and execute that plan for a professional team, a professional club, or perhaps a national organization, then you need a bright individual with management skills along with *sufficient" experience to know how to deal with professional teams. The definition of "sufficient" experience is certainly open to debate, but somehow I suspect that many posters subconciously lean towards the typical "200-goal" guy. The "200-goal" guy is more likely to be a successful figurehead than a working coach/manager.
http://metrostars.mlsnet.com/MLS/met/player_development/academy/ http://metrostars.mlsnet.com/MLS/ne...ent_id=48726&vkey=news_met&fext=.jsp&team=met http://www.dallascup.com/2004/sked/age/U19.html Look harder.
Okay. Here's the problem. You have somewhere around 20 kids per year-grouping. They are grouped by age, not by school year. Somehow you have to even them all out so that, in theory, each group of 20 have legally graduated high school at the end of two years. In the process, you have to avoid overrunning those that are young in school years, or who are poor students. At the same time, you can't completly ruin the academic future of those with college in their future. Additionally, as we have recognized earlier in the thread, you have to do this on a different calendar from the normal public calendar. Let's put it another way. There are a lot of bright surburban kids who qualify for residency. Not all of them are going to move straight into a professional soccer job. Of the few that do, most will be moving into very low-paying situations. If you are the parent of a good student who also happens to be a very good soccer player, are you going to be willing to send your son if you know that their future academic chances for schools like Michigan, Duke, Wake, Stanford, UNC, UVA etc. will be all but destroyed by the residency? Are you willing to gamble the future of your 15 year old to such a degree? The answer for many parents is "no". So, US Soccer does what it can to customize and control the academic experience as well as the athletic experience. This allows them to attract players that Mom and Dad might not otherwise send. These concerns are not academic. (No pun intended.) These concerns have been expressed by parents of more than one Bradenton player. Some of those parents were *very* aware and connected to the US Soccer scene and still the academic part gave them pause. It is not an easy problem to solve effectively and fairly across the board for all of the residency players. When professional soccer can offer a living wage to a larger number of players in the US, then and only then will academies like Bradenton be able to cut education costs. Until then, the custom-fit education has to stay so that those who can't immediately make a quality living in the US playing soccer can at least qualify to attend college to prepare for supporting themselves later in life. I believe that the residency group tried going the public route, but it was just too much of a hassle. Too many variables to control while also trying to work through public adminstrators.
Do you realize that you're misleading people? No, probably not. The Metro kids didn't win the "national championship." They won the 23rd best tournament in the country. http://www.gotsoccer.com/rankings2003/cache/tourneynationalboyspoints.htm The true national championship is held in July. That is a whole different deal. I can see why you are confused. The Metros website says, "The MetroStars U-16s won the club's first national championship Tuesday, beating Santa Clara 2-1 in the championship game of the North American Finals off a dramatic Johnny Exantus goal in overtime." This is akin to calling CSKA the champions of Europe for winning UEFA Cup. I only hope that the writer was ignorant rather than a deliberate liar. For what it's worth, according to the leading youth soccer rankings system in the country, that particular Metro youth team is unranked nationally, while the Santa Clara team it defeated is ranked #17 nationally. http://www.nationalsoccerranking.com/boys u-17.htm As for Dallas Cup, the Metros effectively played in the "B" bracket, with the top 12 U19 teams in the tournament being in the "A" bracket that is called "Super Group."
Triangle - Great answer, thanks. Now I understand. On the academic thing, I do know one very good youth player with an outside chance at Bradenton Residency who would likely decline if asked. His goal at age 18 is Harvard or Stanford, not MLS Reserves. (And with an SAT score of 1100+ in 7th grade, he would appear to be well on his way.) However, I suspect (and GersMan confirms) that 95%+ of top youth soccer prospects would have a different viewpoint.
If we can get our club to finally commit to European/SA competition every 2 years, we would probably also decline until WC year. I don't like what I see (and hear) from down there.
Not sure what to make of those rankings. It list Metro Acadamy in the U-17 list at #16 in its region, but Metro does not have a U-17 team. They have a U-14, U-16, and a U-18 (although they play in U-19 tournements too.) The U-16's won the super Y league title but they don even appear on the regional rankings for the U-16's. So how acurate are those rankings if they list Metro Academy as a U-17 team..and they dont even have one and the U-16's that won the Super Y are not even ranked regionally? Anyway, regarless, my point is still solid. That of all the MLS youth systems in place Metro has by far the most organized and acomplished.
The teams that played U16 in Super Y league in the spring and summer are now U17. (The club calendar turns over on August 1st.) The Super Y "national championships" for the U16 bracket actually featured U17 teams. Thus, that Metro team that was called "U16" in the club's press release is very likely a U17 team in truth. True enough.
way too long in replying, but I didn't say the national team - I said the national interest. If you read my post I'm saying the pro teams are who need to drive it.
I agree that pro/MLS teams should drive it, but I think they should drive it for their own interests (e.g. win MLS championships, increase attendance, sell tickets, sometimes sell players to Real Madrid for lots of $). When you say folks put "self interest over the national interest", what national interest are you talking about? I assume that means the interest of the national team. It seemed to me like you were saying that you thought MLS clubs should somehow operate their development programs to maximize the development of national team players. If not, my bad.
i mean the interest of soccer in the United States - the interest of the soccer nation. The national team benefits from that for sure -but that is an effect, not the cause. The self interest I worry about are people who have done well through the old system, even if there may be better ways to develop players. If the old guard dig in for their personal interest, that can be aproblem. To me it's key to find a way to include all the individuals in the new and improved system, and I'm working on it (articles coming in late January).
Gers, Don't be so quick to call it "improved". Let's see it start working in competition with the existing system and then we will see. That is one advantage in working with a large market. We get the chance to see new things work against established norms before we make definitive decisions.
No, I'm not pronouncing anything as better ahead of time. I'm talking about my pie in the sky setup. I have seen so many crap games in the past year, don't think the current "competition" bar is necessarily that high. The truly good games are to be appreciated for sure, but there tend to be long lulls in between in the current system. Like you, I know, because I'm out there.