All I'm saying is that in these younger groups....................I don't assume a roster is a group of players deemed the "best players at the age level." People on this board think that a U16 national team camp must be the important event in a kid's life in that week. Well, often its not. When I lived in Dallas I often knew of kids that were unavailable for national team callups. The younger the kid, the more likely to decline a callup they were. Every roster often has some coincidental bias. We've had rosters with no players from Texas, and I've come on here and said "You must be joking!! What a bunch of incompetent buffoons the USSF scouts are." People told me to shut up and settle down. Not everything is about Texas. This roster has 11 players from Texas and has no players from the upper midwest. Where are the players from Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, etc. We know they exist! Is it bias, or just a coincidence. Often......................I think its just a coincidence and making a deep analysis of one roster often leads us astray. IF we zoom out and look at a year long list of callups amongst an age group, a different pattern emerges. If we zoom out, can we say there's a total bias against non-MLS players? I mean, we do know these rosters should be heavily influence by MLS players. When Mexico calls up American players, who do they call up? THey mostly call up Diego Letayf or some youngster like that. When was the last time Mexico called up a DFW youngster that wasn't an FC Dallas player? Egads...............I have no idea. This isn't rocket science. You go scout where you think the best players are. That's not Buttscratch United in Temple, Texas. Its FC Dallas. Its LA Galaxy (see Efrain Alvarez).
You're basing locations based on 'commutable' distances by vehicle when there is clear factual evidence where many players as young as 15-16 are not commuting but rather moving and going to school or using the each team's residency options. Lineups prove it. We have players from NY moving to AZ we have players from NC going to KC, its so commonplace we ignore it. The lineups prove we have alot of players from really long commutes or players from outside commutes. http://www.ussoccerda.com/all-clubs. Basic google shows Approximately 84% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas,MLS probably covers 90-95% of all Metro areas so 50% is more like 75-80% and non MLS DAs cover almost the rest which MLS signs many of their players from, so your points don't hold. And where does your random and terribly extreme statement 'the MLS has a TERRIBLE track record of developing players.' come from? News to me. Non MLS DAs and Non DA teams do better? What do you base such an absurdly subjective statement come from? We're still as fans worried more about national teams of little kids when we really should be more worried about where they play on a daily/weekly basis and that should be substantially more on MLS OR DA teams. Instead of blaming US soccer for not finding those 3 kids why not blame the kids for not wanting to compete against our top players to prove their value. Please provide specifics as those are the only way to watch an actual person to give your take credibility.
Far more likely is that USSF, with very limited resources overall for scouting, is not going to dedicate scouting to a an age group where there aren't even any major tournaments, much less any actual future correlation to the senior team. It's not that they don't care that they aren't necessarily calling up the best players at 14 and 15 ... it's that when you rank importance, that's literally the last group of players you care about scouting the most thoroughly, starting from the senior team down. So I spend my money on finding a senior team LB, scouting the U20 pool right before WC Qualification or making sure I see every 14 year old. This is an easy decision. You scout the Development Academy and that's it. That's the point of the development academy, or at least Does it have a terrible track record at development? The success rate of all paths is pretty low. I'd avoid some teams and some management, but others have a much better track record of playing and developing youngsters. And Europe's track record is fairly spotty as well. As it should be -- most players do no make it. Lazy with their scouting is flippant. As I've noted above, there's a real resourcing discussion to account for at this grade level. At the end, professional academies -- including USL and any others that choose to join in -- are fundamentally, structurally superior in many ways. The best talent moving to them is both inevitable and probably desireable. I don't think USSF has to do anything to encourage it, and it's not part of a diabolical plan. It's going to happen for very real reasons. USSF is just relying on a market movement already happening.
Its because FC Dallas has showed us over the last few decades that they already have scouted Buttscratch United in Temple, TX along with all other top leagues and players throughout Temple, TX and surrounding areas along with Houston, Texans, Solar. They have affiliates with leagues through out the region and have player profiles on most top players in that area and all areas around Dallas and beyond into other states. But someone blames US soccer for not finding some obscure player in Texas. FC Dallas' scouting IS US soccer scouting. They work hand in hand.
Brooklyn Raines at Barca residency Gabriel Enriquez at Surf Korede Osunida at Crossfire Alex Alcala at Stockton TLC who's not even in the DA and is the next big time mexico dual nat Generally any kid at San Diego Surf, Barca Residency, Crossfire Premier, FC Golden State, Sockers FC, FC United St Louis FC, Beachside SC, and PDA should get a look because those clubs consistently produce youth national team level players. MLS clubs are constantly trying to poach players from those clubs.
So, presumably, Barca Residency is out-recruiting the MLS academies, in at least some cases. If I were USSoccer, stuff like that would drive me crazy.
Why? Plenty of top prospects are signing with MLS Academies. Barca and some other non-MLS academies seem to develop players fairly well. I'd imagine USSF is just fine with having multiple pathways for development. If no top prospects were signing with domestic professional teams, that'd be a concern. But a huge percentage do. If some want to go elsewhere for whatever reason, I really doubt USSF is worried about it.
Because it's a bad sign of how the MLS is doing with their development. There is absolutely no reason why a place who's making money solely off of charging their players should be able to compete with an MLS academy in player development. That is not happening in other countries. I do think it's a big deal. Even if most kids are going MLS-academy, if this isn't a no-brainer decision for everyone, it's a bad sign.
There are always going to be kids (at least in the short term) who think that signing with an MLS team will jeopardize their opportunities to move to Europe. It's a great thing that these clubs are offering an alternative to MLS. A small fraction of kids choosing this path is inevitable -- as long as it's a small number, it's not a bad sign at all. Neither path is going to be 100% perfect for every player, so if USSF and MLS are losing any sleep over this, they are fighting a losing battle. I'm pretty sure they understand that.
No, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The vast majority of our top prospects are at MLS academies. But there's still reasons to go to non-MLS academies. Perhaps the location is more ideal. Perhaps you value specific coaches or the prestige of Barca. Perhaps the money isn't a lot for your family, or you are getting a scholarship. Perhaps you want to go to Europe as soon as possible and don't want to be at a professional academy. This is a few 15 year olds -- and by the way, the success rate of the top 15 year olds being the top 20s is very, very small -- out of very many top 15 year olds. In Gabriel Enriquez' case, he's from San Diego. Barca is the closest residency, so if he didn't want to be at Surf, and couldn't commute to LA all the time .. perhaps this is what worked. I also imagine his family isn't paying much, if anything, if he's as good as you say. And the lure of Barcelona is strong. Or maybe he connected with a coach. Or maybe he considered LAFC, but they are loaded at his position in his class. The idea that MLS must have 100% of the top prospects in the country -- and especially at age 15 -- or it's a big issue is ridiculous. One of the top 16 year olds in England is at Brimingham City. What a STUNNING INDICTMENT of the Premier League! How could Aston Villa not secure him! Or Wolves! Something is clearly wrong!
Barca is not out recruiting MLS academies at all. They have managed to send quite a few players too MLS academies who would have never had the opportunity before. Examples are Julian Araujo and Bryce Duke went from Barca to MLS clubsand signed first team contracts.
Both of your examples are players they sent to mls because they were either promised almost immediate signings (araujo) or were immediate signings (Duke). Duke didn’t go to their academy, lafc purchased his hg rights from rsl and signed him to their first team directly from barca.
Jude Bellingham is getting playing time in the championship -- which is almost certainly a better league than the MLS. If he were from a premier league academy, they would likely have loaned him to a championship team at this age, because it's the best thing for his development. So it's not a great comparison. A better comparison would be if Jude Bellingham was still playing for the Maidstone academy team at 16, so that he could still be in a position to make a move to Dortmund, because he's afraid that if he moved to the Aston Villa or Wolves academy, his only option would be to sign a crappy contract at 17, locking him in until he's 21, and he fears that they'll then keep him, underpaid, for that whole period, rather than sell him on to somewhere better for his development. And then he would have wasted the most important 3 years of development that he will ever have on a crappy team playing against crappy competition. Then, people would say something is clearly wrong. And, yes, people in England are talking about what's wrong with their own development because as Bellingham outgrows the championship, he's looking to move to Dortmund and not a big English club.
These are ramblings that doesn't address any issues. Bellingham signs with a higher based league but when US players do it, its wrong?
Here is my best 23 for the '05 age group. GK: Ochoa, Zaragoza, Gomez DF: Evans, Sanchez, Clarke, Tanks, DuBroff, Rouse, Nero MF: Martinez, Baker-Whiting, Grabfelder, Jones, Carleton, Villal, Ramirez, Dubon, Gray, Akalu, Deziel FW: Mazzola, Willcot Best XI: Ochoa Evans-Tanks-Clarke-Rouse Baker Whiting-Grabfelder Carleton Dubon-Mazzola-Akalu
Anybody ever hear of a kid by the name of Rigo Luna? Saw him playing on an PDP team against Sac Republic U-15s. Guessing he’s a 05. Don’t know who he has played for or even if he’s US eligible. Check him out on the yellow team. Right winger with long hair. Looks like he could be something special.
Has anyone found any solid left backs or 10's for the 2005 age group? When looking at the 2025 u20 cycle, the 2005's and 2006's are by far the most talented age groups so far. Center back (good options but no stars yet because they're so young), left back, and the 10 are the weak spots. Every other position has a lot of remarkable talent in the 2005 age group. Nolan Norris is an okay player but I'm not sold on him being the top left back option. I know Damon Rouse has been suggested but I see him more as a left wing instead of a left back. I know Thomas Hudson Davis for Espanyol is also a left back but I haven not been able to see any games of his so I can't commit to him being the top option. For the 10 I like Diego Hernandez but I'm not blown away by his talent level. I want to see Anthony Ramirez tried there but his complete lack of a weak foot makes me want to keep him on the right wing where he excels. For the 2005's the strikers and wingers are the deepest by far for any age group but this may be the weakest group at the 10. Robert Deziel has been super underwhelming in games that I have watched as well.