Agree with this as well. Utilizing players who never played youth football in our country is not the recipe for success. It will help, but it can’t be relied on. I also agree with the 20 somethings that could raise the level. The worry is, is there a real market for a mid 20s American.
Very few of our players are heading to second-tier league developmental clubs. Very few 18 year olds start for the clubs they are heading to, regardless of nationality. If you really want to take any substantial take-aways here, any analysis of this would have to: Not focus only on the successful development -- the % shouldn't be of the roster but rather of the total of each path -- looking at prior U20 and U17 rosters you can see a slew of faile development on all paths You'd have to adjust for talent Here's my high level take: there's way too much focus on late stage development versus early stage development. It's not to say late stage development doesn't matter, but the most glaring thing is actually the sheer number of foreign-raised players on the team as a % of total eligible versus any level of US development. There's little doubt in my mind that continual development matters -- yes, players should keep pushing themselves. But the combined 2.5 years at Dortmund did not make Pulisic and Reyna -- the fact that they are both children of pros scream out about both genetics but also early age development.
There's something to be said about asking MLS to be a more mature development stop where a player can continue developing until 20, 21 or 22 and then be sold to directly be a first team member in a top 5 league. For example, Johnny Cardoso was in Brazil until 22. Now that we have found out he has an Italian passport it means that he actively chose to stay in Brazil for 6 years. He had ample opportunity to wait out his Brazilian contract and move to Europe earlier.
we're talking about 2 different questions you are asking: how should we assess domestic player development i.e. the current cycle? i am asking: of the actual players that can and will actually play for the usmnt...how are we looking this cycle? both questions are valid and interesting. when i look at a given cohort....i dont prefer to look at it as ....how is the overally development scheme doing in the usa.... when someone inculdes A LOT of players that are going to play for mexico or other countries....it really doesnt do a great job of answering my question at all..... yeah its nice long term to wonder how the usa is doing in player development generally...but this thread is about THIS U20 team....not development generally.
That's the trend because it used to be the only option for top players. If anything, that trend is reversing. Players like Pulisic and Sargent made their name at Bradenton and then went straight abroad, never really touching MLS. That's almost impossible to do now, especially if you have to wait til 18. The new normal is to sign in MLS, maybe go straight abroad if you have offers (Reyna, Richards, Scally, Cavan, McFarlane), and if not, then play in MLS until you do. The trend you're talking about is just a reflection of what the landscape was when those guys grew up.