Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Premier

US Men's National Team

Recommended Posts

Tactics?

JK is here to stay, so that discussion is dead imo, but yesterday I heard Eric Wynalda rip into JK's tactics saying the US was playing "with one arm tied behind its back" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzLzOcg7zy8). He also said the US has not advanced in 20 years since his team under Bora. Wynalda speculated that the players were likely disappointed upon seeing the squad list each game and knowing they would be held back, unable to play their game. Today I see Donovan making similar comments ("As a whole, I think tactically, the team was not set up to succeed. They were set up in a way that was opposite from what they've been the past couple years, which is opening up, passing, attacking -- trying to do that. And the team's been successful that way. Why they decided to switch that in the World Cup, none of us will know. From a playing standpoint, I think the guys will probably be disappointed in the way things went.").

Paul Gardner - unabashed fan of the beautiful game and unrelenting critic of US Soccer and defensive football, wants to bid farewell to Klinsman due to his boring "sterile" style of play - Thank you, Jurgen. And good bye. "I regard it as patently obvious that the USA, under Klinsmann, has made no advance at all in either the caliber or the style of its play." (suggesting Tab Ramos as a replacement).

Did the US play too defensively? Tellingly, neither Wynalda nor Donovan offer specifics as to how the team could have played more attacking football. And of course they don't address the possibility that a more attacking style would have likely resulted in three losses and a -10 goal differential. I didn't follow tactics in the qualification closely enough to know - was there a major change in tactics between qualification and the world cup finals? As a Chelsea fan, I am very comfortable with results-oriented football, and enjoy watching a team defend with heart, blood and soul for 120 minutes. Wondo had the game winner on his foot at the end - what more could we ask of this coach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this works... don't know that there's enough US action to warrant separating this out, but I'm all in either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeldin isngetting paid 91k. He's as good as gone.

His salary has nothing to do with it per say.It is his transfer fee which will control when he goes. I am sure Seattle is going to set a huge price for him, relative to other Americans (because of age and because of his now elevated worth on the worlds stage).If some one pays it then he is gone but that is not what we are discussing. We are talking about what is good for his development, not his wallet. Yedlin was Seattle first home grown player. His transfer fee could pay for more years of developing players. It is a great sign if someone wants to grab him. Ream went for about $3m but did not have the age or the exposure Yedlin just got so I could see Seattle asking for anything in the 5-7 million range.
Can you please explain this transfer fee deal? How long does a club own the rights to a player? I have other questions but will let you start there.
Clubs own the rights to a player for as long as he's under contract with them. Effectively there's little or no "trading" in soccer -- almost everything is cash. So if a team wants to sell a player they find someone willing to pay the transfer fee and then the buying team has to come to an agreement on salary directly with the player. There are exceptions (Barcelona is considering ~45m cash + Alexis Sanchez to Liverpool for Luis Suarez right now), but even then it's couched in total transfer fee terms (45m + 35m for Sanchez = 80m).

And to answer his question of how long they control the player, it is similar to other sports.

The player signs a contract with the team for X amount of years. If the player completes the contract for the X years, he affectively becomes a free agent and he can move where ever he wants with no transfer fee attached.

Thanks guys. So how does this play down to an MLS academy or the European system. Are prop sects signing away a chunk of their career to get advanced training at the age of 14 or 15?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeldin isngetting paid 91k. He's as good as gone.

His salary has nothing to do with it per say.It is his transfer fee which will control when he goes. I am sure Seattle is going to set a huge price for him, relative to other Americans (because of age and because of his now elevated worth on the worlds stage).If some one pays it then he is gone but that is not what we are discussing. We are talking about what is good for his development, not his wallet. Yedlin was Seattle first home grown player. His transfer fee could pay for more years of developing players. It is a great sign if someone wants to grab him. Ream went for about $3m but did not have the age or the exposure Yedlin just got so I could see Seattle asking for anything in the 5-7 million range.
Can you please explain this transfer fee deal? How long does a club own the rights to a player? I have other questions but will let you start there.
Clubs own the rights to a player for as long as he's under contract with them. Effectively there's little or no "trading" in soccer -- almost everything is cash. So if a team wants to sell a player they find someone willing to pay the transfer fee and then the buying team has to come to an agreement on salary directly with the player. There are exceptions (Barcelona is considering ~45m cash + Alexis Sanchez to Liverpool for Luis Suarez right now), but even then it's couched in total transfer fee terms (45m + 35m for Sanchez = 80m).

And to answer his question of how long they control the player, it is similar to other sports.

The player signs a contract with the team for X amount of years. If the player completes the contract for the X years, he affectively becomes a free agent and he can move where ever he wants with no transfer fee attached.

Thanks guys. So how does this play down to an MLS academy or the European system. Are prop sects signing away a chunk of their career to get advanced training at the age of 14 or 15?

This gets complicated and I'm not sure any of us know the real correct legal answer. The short answer is that Euro prospects often sign with clubs on youth deals. If/when they become good enough to play for the senior team, they are usually given senior contracts. This happened with Gedion Zelalem, the US/German/Ethiopia player who now plays for Arsenal. It's kinda like a contract upgrade.

In America, there is a program called Generation Adidas, which helps to bring young stars into the professional ranks early, generally bypassing college in favor of professional training. Andy could speak more to that. Some Generation Adidas products include Jozy Altidore and Michael Bradley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeldin isngetting paid 91k. He's as good as gone.

His salary has nothing to do with it per say.It is his transfer fee which will control when he goes. I am sure Seattle is going to set a huge price for him, relative to other Americans (because of age and because of his now elevated worth on the worlds stage).If some one pays it then he is gone but that is not what we are discussing. We are talking about what is good for his development, not his wallet. Yedlin was Seattle first home grown player. His transfer fee could pay for more years of developing players. It is a great sign if someone wants to grab him. Ream went for about $3m but did not have the age or the exposure Yedlin just got so I could see Seattle asking for anything in the 5-7 million range.
Can you please explain this transfer fee deal? How long does a club own the rights to a player? I have other questions but will let you start there.
Clubs own the rights to a player for as long as he's under contract with them. Effectively there's little or no "trading" in soccer -- almost everything is cash. So if a team wants to sell a player they find someone willing to pay the transfer fee and then the buying team has to come to an agreement on salary directly with the player. There are exceptions (Barcelona is considering ~45m cash + Alexis Sanchez to Liverpool for Luis Suarez right now), but even then it's couched in total transfer fee terms (45m + 35m for Sanchez = 80m).

And to answer his question of how long they control the player, it is similar to other sports.

The player signs a contract with the team for X amount of years. If the player completes the contract for the X years, he affectively becomes a free agent and he can move where ever he wants with no transfer fee attached.

Thanks guys. So how does this play down to an MLS academy or the European system. Are prop sects signing away a chunk of their career to get advanced training at the age of 14 or 15?

I am not exactly sure what a prop sect is.

By giving away career, do you mean monetarily? if so no. The transfer fee and salary are two different things.

Lets look at Diego Fagundez for example. He was paid a small amount to join the Revs academy.

By joining and excelling in the Revs academy, he was able to be MLS ready well before most other American players.

Because he was a home grown player, he was able to be paid more money than a typical rookie.

MLS has a rule where you can have up to two home grown players and they do not count against the salary cap.

Obviously in Europe there is not a salary cap like we know it, but the academies are still by far the best way to break through for young players and start to get the bigger contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fwiw, quickly... I think the tactics and team shape was well suited ro the players at hand. We were a Wondo sitter away from advancing against a texhically far superior side. But we really needed a bit more offensive magic from any of bradley (who I think put in solid games), bedoya or zusi for the tactics to shine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this works... don't know that there's enough US action to warrant separating this out, but I'm all in either way.

Maybe not but I figure it'll pick up steam before and after games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tactics?

JK is here to stay, so that discussion is dead imo, but yesterday I heard Eric Wynalda rip into JK's tactics saying the US was playing "with one arm tied behind its back" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzLzOcg7zy8). He also said the US has not advanced in 20 years since his team under Bora. Wynalda speculated that the players were likely disappointed upon seeing the squad list each game and knowing they would be held back, unable to play their game. Today I see Donovan making similar comments ("As a whole, I think tactically, the team was not set up to succeed. They were set up in a way that was opposite from what they've been the past couple years, which is opening up, passing, attacking -- trying to do that. And the team's been successful that way. Why they decided to switch that in the World Cup, none of us will know. From a playing standpoint, I think the guys will probably be disappointed in the way things went.").

Paul Gardner - unabashed fan of the beautiful game and unrelenting critic of US Soccer and defensive football, wants to bid farewell to Klinsman due to his boring "sterile" style of play - Thank you, Jurgen. And good bye. "I regard it as patently obvious that the USA, under Klinsmann, has made no advance at all in either the caliber or the style of its play." (suggesting Tab Ramos as a replacement).

Did the US play too defensively? Tellingly, neither Wynalda nor Donovan offer specifics as to how the team could have played more attacking football. And of course they don't address the possibility that a more attacking style would have likely resulted in three losses and a -10 goal differential. I didn't follow tactics in the qualification closely enough to know - was there a major change in tactics between qualification and the world cup finals? As a Chelsea fan, I am very comfortable with results-oriented football, and enjoy watching a team defend with heart, blood and soul for 120 minutes. Wondo had the game winner on his foot at the end - what more could we ask of this coach?

I mean, it's hard to even respond to a complaint about tactics that contains no actual tactical discussion. If I had to guess what Donovan was talking about, I'd say that he felt that there were probably better, more offensive options (*cough cough*) that could have played other than Bedoya or Zusi (and I'm guessing he's probably thinking most of Bedoya).

And maybe that's true. JK chose his wingers based on defensive effort because he had a 32 year old DMB (still getting forward a bit!) on one side and whoever on the right side with complete license to get forward. I think its also fair to note that whatever Klinsmann called it, the US basically played a 4-5-1 the entire tournament. We didn't even really take the personnel to be able to throw a 4-4-2 out there.

But obviously, that's a calculated risk. In some senses, JK's comments seem to want to have it both ways. He talks about the team "giving too much respect" and only really playing creatively while behind, but other than Yedlin, he showed a real reluctance to make offensive substitutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birmingham had some big 6'8" stiff a few years ago too. I'm sure our resident connoisseur of Route 1 football, eephus, can provide more examples.

The Black Norwegian John Carew had success in a number of European leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birmingham had some big 6'8" stiff a few years ago too. I'm sure our resident connoisseur of Route 1 football, eephus, can provide more examples.

The Black Norwegian John Carew had success in a number of European leagues.

[ibra]

"What Carew can do with a football, I can do with an orange."

[/ibra]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm on the minority side of the argument, but one of these 6'6" weighing in at 210-230 with 4.4 speed and some insane vertical jump would be devastating up top. Seems like winning headers on corner kickers would be much easier if you can get a foot plus above everyone else and you're so big the defenders can't push you around.

Hmmm, has anyone actually tried this? I don't see why it wouldn't work, except that maybe the tall guy would be too much of a liability in the other aspects of the game. If you taught Shaq how to direct a header, how is any team going to stop him on corner kicks?

Well all I can say is that there are tall people all over the world and if this would have worked to any degree, someone would have tried it by now with a seven footer.

Tallest I can remember was Jan Koller.

I brought this up for two reasons...

1. I'm still have the opinion that on average the US has one of the best athlete pools in the world due to our size and standard of living. Even our poor kids still get food and don't have to farm 12 hours a day for the most part. I don't think our best athletes have soccer at the top of their list for the most part at this time. I've watched all kinds of youth soccer over the last several years at a regional level and it's extremely rare to see a kid stand out from an athletic standpoint. In almost every other youth spot you can pick out the best athlete and the kid(s) that will be playing D1 ball.

What happens if you take the top WR and RB off each NFL team and go back in time. At the age of 10 they never play a down of football and play soccer almost exclusively (with a path available to be seen). Most may flame out, but I think you're very likely to have an elite player that is a difference maker on a national team.

2. Been watching a 15 yo who is arguably the best player in this state in his age. He's 6'2" and 180 right now and very fast…6'6" is his expected height. Wondering if he will excel or if his size will limit his potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm on the minority side of the argument, but one of these 6'6" weighing in at 210-230 with 4.4 speed and some insane vertical jump would be devastating up top. Seems like winning headers on corner kickers would be much easier if you can get a foot plus above everyone else and you're so big the defenders can't push you around.

Hmmm, has anyone actually tried this? I don't see why it wouldn't work, except that maybe the tall guy would be too much of a liability in the other aspects of the game. If you taught Shaq how to direct a header, how is any team going to stop him on corner kicks?

Well all I can say is that there are tall people all over the world and if this would have worked to any degree, someone would have tried it by now with a seven footer.

Tallest I can remember was Jan Koller.

I brought this up for two reasons...

1. I'm still have the opinion that on average the US has one of the best athlete pools in the world due to our size and standard of living. Even our poor kids still get food and don't have to farm 12 hours a day for the most part. I don't think our best athletes have soccer at the top of their list for the most part at this time. I've watched all kinds of youth soccer over the last several years at a regional level and it's extremely rare to see a kid stand out from an athletic standpoint. In almost every other youth spot you can pick out the best athlete and the kid(s) that will be playing D1 ball.

What happens if you take the top WR and RB off each NFL team and go back in time. At the age of 10 they never play a down of football and play soccer almost exclusively (with a path available to be seen). Most may flame out, but I think you're very likely to have an elite player that is a difference maker on a national team.

2. Been watching a 15 yo who is arguably the best player in this state in his age. He's 6'2" and 180 right now and very fast…6'6" is his expected height. Wondering if he will excel or if his size will limit his potential.

Part of what's being missed here is that the type of athlete you want for soccer is different than what you want for basketball or football. Sure, the explosiveness, fast-twitch muscles, and size/speed ratio is nice, but endurance, stamina, and balance are far more important. There's a reason the best player in the world is only 5'7" and not even 150 lbs. Those other attributes aren't as important. If they were, some of these African teams should completely dominate. And it's not as if some of those players haven't been playing all their life like many of the other European countries.

This has nothing to do with the athletic pool we have here in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeldin isngetting paid 91k. He's as good as gone.

His salary has nothing to do with it per say.It is his transfer fee which will control when he goes. I am sure Seattle is going to set a huge price for him, relative to other Americans (because of age and because of his now elevated worth on the worlds stage).If some one pays it then he is gone but that is not what we are discussing. We are talking about what is good for his development, not his wallet. Yedlin was Seattle first home grown player. His transfer fee could pay for more years of developing players. It is a great sign if someone wants to grab him. Ream went for about $3m but did not have the age or the exposure Yedlin just got so I could see Seattle asking for anything in the 5-7 million range.
Can you please explain this transfer fee deal? How long does a club own the rights to a player? I have other questions but will let you start there.
Clubs own the rights to a player for as long as he's under contract with them. Effectively there's little or no "trading" in soccer -- almost everything is cash. So if a team wants to sell a player they find someone willing to pay the transfer fee and then the buying team has to come to an agreement on salary directly with the player. There are exceptions (Barcelona is considering ~45m cash + Alexis Sanchez to Liverpool for Luis Suarez right now), but even then it's couched in total transfer fee terms (45m + 35m for Sanchez = 80m).

And to answer his question of how long they control the player, it is similar to other sports.

The player signs a contract with the team for X amount of years. If the player completes the contract for the X years, he affectively becomes a free agent and he can move where ever he wants with no transfer fee attached.

Thanks guys. So how does this play down to an MLS academy or the European system. Are prop sects signing away a chunk of their career to get advanced training at the age of 14 or 15?

I am not exactly sure what a prop sect is.

By giving away career, do you mean monetarily? if so no. The transfer fee and salary are two different things.

Lets look at Diego Fagundez for example. He was paid a small amount to join the Revs academy.

By joining and excelling in the Revs academy, he was able to be MLS ready well before most other American players.

Because he was a home grown player, he was able to be paid more money than a typical rookie.

MLS has a rule where you can have up to two home grown players and they do not count against the salary cap.

Obviously in Europe there is not a salary cap like we know it, but the academies are still by far the best way to break through for young players and start to get the bigger contracts.

prospects

In your example, when he joined the academy did they get him to sign for 6-8 years? I would think these academies could get a 14 yo to sign away half of his potential career for peanuts when the option is to fight the club/college path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess Donovan is not going to get that sending-off game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeldin isngetting paid 91k. He's as good as gone.

His salary has nothing to do with it per say.It is his transfer fee which will control when he goes. I am sure Seattle is going to set a huge price for him, relative to other Americans (because of age and because of his now elevated worth on the worlds stage).If some one pays it then he is gone but that is not what we are discussing. We are talking about what is good for his development, not his wallet. Yedlin was Seattle first home grown player. His transfer fee could pay for more years of developing players. It is a great sign if someone wants to grab him. Ream went for about $3m but did not have the age or the exposure Yedlin just got so I could see Seattle asking for anything in the 5-7 million range.
Can you please explain this transfer fee deal? How long does a club own the rights to a player? I have other questions but will let you start there.
Clubs own the rights to a player for as long as he's under contract with them. Effectively there's little or no "trading" in soccer -- almost everything is cash. So if a team wants to sell a player they find someone willing to pay the transfer fee and then the buying team has to come to an agreement on salary directly with the player. There are exceptions (Barcelona is considering ~45m cash + Alexis Sanchez to Liverpool for Luis Suarez right now), but even then it's couched in total transfer fee terms (45m + 35m for Sanchez = 80m).

And to answer his question of how long they control the player, it is similar to other sports.

The player signs a contract with the team for X amount of years. If the player completes the contract for the X years, he affectively becomes a free agent and he can move where ever he wants with no transfer fee attached.

Thanks guys. So how does this play down to an MLS academy or the European system. Are prop sects signing away a chunk of their career to get advanced training at the age of 14 or 15?

I am not exactly sure what a prop sect is.

By giving away career, do you mean monetarily? if so no. The transfer fee and salary are two different things.

Lets look at Diego Fagundez for example. He was paid a small amount to join the Revs academy.

By joining and excelling in the Revs academy, he was able to be MLS ready well before most other American players.

Because he was a home grown player, he was able to be paid more money than a typical rookie.

MLS has a rule where you can have up to two home grown players and they do not count against the salary cap.

Obviously in Europe there is not a salary cap like we know it, but the academies are still by far the best way to break through for young players and start to get the bigger contracts.

prospects

In your example, when he joined the academy did they get him to sign for 6-8 years? I would think these academies could get a 14 yo to sign away half of his potential career for peanuts when the option is to fight the club/college path.

Players force transfers pretty easily in Europe - no matter the contract length. As with most business transactions, money talks, and if a team offers enough money, any player can move at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeldin isngetting paid 91k. He's as good as gone.

His salary has nothing to do with it per say.It is his transfer fee which will control when he goes. I am sure Seattle is going to set a huge price for him, relative to other Americans (because of age and because of his now elevated worth on the worlds stage).If some one pays it then he is gone but that is not what we are discussing. We are talking about what is good for his development, not his wallet. Yedlin was Seattle first home grown player. His transfer fee could pay for more years of developing players. It is a great sign if someone wants to grab him. Ream went for about $3m but did not have the age or the exposure Yedlin just got so I could see Seattle asking for anything in the 5-7 million range.
Can you please explain this transfer fee deal? How long does a club own the rights to a player? I have other questions but will let you start there.
Clubs own the rights to a player for as long as he's under contract with them. Effectively there's little or no "trading" in soccer -- almost everything is cash. So if a team wants to sell a player they find someone willing to pay the transfer fee and then the buying team has to come to an agreement on salary directly with the player. There are exceptions (Barcelona is considering ~45m cash + Alexis Sanchez to Liverpool for Luis Suarez right now), but even then it's couched in total transfer fee terms (45m + 35m for Sanchez = 80m).

And to answer his question of how long they control the player, it is similar to other sports.

The player signs a contract with the team for X amount of years. If the player completes the contract for the X years, he affectively becomes a free agent and he can move where ever he wants with no transfer fee attached.

Thanks guys. So how does this play down to an MLS academy or the European system. Are prop sects signing away a chunk of their career to get advanced training at the age of 14 or 15?

I am not exactly sure what a prop sect is.

By giving away career, do you mean monetarily? if so no. The transfer fee and salary are two different things.

Lets look at Diego Fagundez for example. He was paid a small amount to join the Revs academy.

By joining and excelling in the Revs academy, he was able to be MLS ready well before most other American players.

Because he was a home grown player, he was able to be paid more money than a typical rookie.

MLS has a rule where you can have up to two home grown players and they do not count against the salary cap.

Obviously in Europe there is not a salary cap like we know it, but the academies are still by far the best way to break through for young players and start to get the bigger contracts.

prospects

In your example, when he joined the academy did they get him to sign for 6-8 years? I would think these academies could get a 14 yo to sign away half of his potential career for peanuts when the option is to fight the club/college path.

You can't sign a professional contract until you come of age. In Europe, that's generally 17. I don't know what the limit is in the United States. Because of transfer fees, there's less chance of any great young talent being tied down because another team will pay the transfer fee. Seattle stands to make a very, very tidy profit on Yedlin if he goes overseas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm on the minority side of the argument, but one of these 6'6" weighing in at 210-230 with 4.4 speed and some insane vertical jump would be devastating up top. Seems like winning headers on corner kickers would be much easier if you can get a foot plus above everyone else and you're so big the defenders can't push you around.

Hmmm, has anyone actually tried this? I don't see why it wouldn't work, except that maybe the tall guy would be too much of a liability in the other aspects of the game. If you taught Shaq how to direct a header, how is any team going to stop him on corner kicks?

Well all I can say is that there are tall people all over the world and if this would have worked to any degree, someone would have tried it by now with a seven footer.

Tallest I can remember was Jan Koller.

I brought this up for two reasons...

1. I'm still have the opinion that on average the US has one of the best athlete pools in the world due to our size and standard of living. Even our poor kids still get food and don't have to farm 12 hours a day for the most part. I don't think our best athletes have soccer at the top of their list for the most part at this time. I've watched all kinds of youth soccer over the last several years at a regional level and it's extremely rare to see a kid stand out from an athletic standpoint. In almost every other youth spot you can pick out the best athlete and the kid(s) that will be playing D1 ball.

What happens if you take the top WR and RB off each NFL team and go back in time. At the age of 10 they never play a down of football and play soccer almost exclusively (with a path available to be seen). Most may flame out, but I think you're very likely to have an elite player that is a difference maker on a national team.

2. Been watching a 15 yo who is arguably the best player in this state in his age. He's 6'2" and 180 right now and very fast…6'6" is his expected height. Wondering if he will excel or if his size will limit his potential.

Part of what's being missed here is that the type of athlete you want for soccer is different than what you want for basketball or football. Sure, the explosiveness, fast-twitch muscles, and size/speed ratio is nice, but endurance, stamina, and balance are far more important. There's a reason the best player in the world is only 5'7" and not even 150 lbs. Those other attributes aren't as important. If they were, some of these African teams should completely dominate. And it's not as if some of those players haven't been playing all their life like many of the other European countries.

This has nothing to do with the athletic pool we have here in the US.

The african countries have more endurance/stamina short beanpole guys than anyone else based on their dominance in long distance events.

Also, baseball and basketball in this country definitely improved when the pool was opened up to include black americans. What I see with my eyes on the soccer fields doesn't resemble what I see on the football fields or basketball courts. I think it does have a lot to do with the pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birmingham had some big 6'8" stiff a few years ago too. I'm sure our resident connoisseur of Route 1 football, eephus, can provide more examples.

The Black Norwegian John Carew had success in a number of European leagues.

Such a Racist. Hes not black, hes "African American" <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeldin isngetting paid 91k. He's as good as gone.

His salary has nothing to do with it per say.It is his transfer fee which will control when he goes. I am sure Seattle is going to set a huge price for him, relative to other Americans (because of age and because of his now elevated worth on the worlds stage).If some one pays it then he is gone but that is not what we are discussing. We are talking about what is good for his development, not his wallet. Yedlin was Seattle first home grown player. His transfer fee could pay for more years of developing players. It is a great sign if someone wants to grab him. Ream went for about $3m but did not have the age or the exposure Yedlin just got so I could see Seattle asking for anything in the 5-7 million range.
Can you please explain this transfer fee deal? How long does a club own the rights to a player? I have other questions but will let you start there.
Clubs own the rights to a player for as long as he's under contract with them. Effectively there's little or no "trading" in soccer -- almost everything is cash. So if a team wants to sell a player they find someone willing to pay the transfer fee and then the buying team has to come to an agreement on salary directly with the player. There are exceptions (Barcelona is considering ~45m cash + Alexis Sanchez to Liverpool for Luis Suarez right now), but even then it's couched in total transfer fee terms (45m + 35m for Sanchez = 80m).

And to answer his question of how long they control the player, it is similar to other sports.

The player signs a contract with the team for X amount of years. If the player completes the contract for the X years, he affectively becomes a free agent and he can move where ever he wants with no transfer fee attached.

Thanks guys. So how does this play down to an MLS academy or the European system. Are prop sects signing away a chunk of their career to get advanced training at the age of 14 or 15?

I am not exactly sure what a prop sect is.

By giving away career, do you mean monetarily? if so no. The transfer fee and salary are two different things.

Lets look at Diego Fagundez for example. He was paid a small amount to join the Revs academy.

By joining and excelling in the Revs academy, he was able to be MLS ready well before most other American players.

Because he was a home grown player, he was able to be paid more money than a typical rookie.

MLS has a rule where you can have up to two home grown players and they do not count against the salary cap.

Obviously in Europe there is not a salary cap like we know it, but the academies are still by far the best way to break through for young players and start to get the bigger contracts.

prospects

In your example, when he joined the academy did they get him to sign for 6-8 years? I would think these academies could get a 14 yo to sign away half of his potential career for peanuts when the option is to fight the club/college path.

You can't sign a professional contract until you come of age. In Europe, that's generally 17. I don't know what the limit is in the United States. Because of transfer fees, there's less chance of any great young talent being tied down because another team will pay the transfer fee. Seattle stands to make a very, very tidy profit on Yedlin if he goes overseas.

Thanks again for the info everyone.

So what prevents Seattle from sending Yedlin to the Iraq Liga for a transfer fee. Does Yedlin have any say in where he goes or does he have to hold out for the balance of his contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think 2nd generation hispanic immigrants would start to show up in spades. I mean look at France, these don't look like the guys you would think would be sauntering down the street in a beret with a baguette.

I think we are 1-2 cycles away from this.

If you look at the make up of the younger US national teams, they are loaded with hispanic names.

It is going to be tricky figuring out how to blend all the various skills sets together.

I also think that with more and more Hispanics becoming American citizens, our demographics changing over the next 20 years will also improve our home grown talent for futbol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fwiw, quickly... I think the tactics and team shape was well suited ro the players at hand. We were a Wondo sitter away from advancing against a texhically far superior side. But we really needed a bit more offensive magic from any of bradley (who I think put in solid games), bedoya or zusi for the tactics to shine.

Speaking of axes to grind... Wynalda, Donovan and Gardner can go jump in a wood chipper.

The idea that we'd be better off trying to slug it out with those teams offensively is just silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm on the minority side of the argument, but one of these 6'6" weighing in at 210-230 with 4.4 speed and some insane vertical jump would be devastating up top. Seems like winning headers on corner kickers would be much easier if you can get a foot plus above everyone else and you're so big the defenders can't push you around.

Hmmm, has anyone actually tried this? I don't see why it wouldn't work, except that maybe the tall guy would be too much of a liability in the other aspects of the game. If you taught Shaq how to direct a header, how is any team going to stop him on corner kicks?

Well all I can say is that there are tall people all over the world and if this would have worked to any degree, someone would have tried it by now with a seven footer.

Tallest I can remember was Jan Koller.

I brought this up for two reasons...

1. I'm still have the opinion that on average the US has one of the best athlete pools in the world due to our size and standard of living. Even our poor kids still get food and don't have to farm 12 hours a day for the most part. I don't think our best athletes have soccer at the top of their list for the most part at this time. I've watched all kinds of youth soccer over the last several years at a regional level and it's extremely rare to see a kid stand out from an athletic standpoint. In almost every other youth spot you can pick out the best athlete and the kid(s) that will be playing D1 ball.

What happens if you take the top WR and RB off each NFL team and go back in time. At the age of 10 they never play a down of football and play soccer almost exclusively (with a path available to be seen). Most may flame out, but I think you're very likely to have an elite player that is a difference maker on a national team.

2. Been watching a 15 yo who is arguably the best player in this state in his age. He's 6'2" and 180 right now and very fast…6'6" is his expected height. Wondering if he will excel or if his size will limit his potential.

Part of what's being missed here is that the type of athlete you want for soccer is different than what you want for basketball or football. Sure, the explosiveness, fast-twitch muscles, and size/speed ratio is nice, but endurance, stamina, and balance are far more important. There's a reason the best player in the world is only 5'7" and not even 150 lbs. Those other attributes aren't as important. If they were, some of these African teams should completely dominate. And it's not as if some of those players haven't been playing all their life like many of the other European countries.

This has nothing to do with the athletic pool we have here in the US.

The african countries have more endurance/stamina short beanpole guys than anyone else based on their dominance in long distance events.

Also, baseball and basketball in this country definitely improved when the pool was opened up to include black americans. What I see with my eyes on the soccer fields doesn't resemble what I see on the football fields or basketball courts. I think it does have a lot to do with the pool.

If you were to look at Leo Messi or C. Ronaldo or Wayne Rooney or any other great soccer player at 16, I guarantee you would never pick them out as tremendous athletes. There's no reason you should look out at a youth soccer game and see kids who look like great basketball and football players. As we discuss every 4 years, the US doesn't lose games for lack of good athletes. We almost never get out-run, out-muscled, out-jumped or out-quicked. We lose because other teams are technically and tactically superior by a very wide margin (although getting smaller imo). You can take the 10,000 greatest 10 year old athletes in this country and they still won't become great soccer players here without the proper development.

I understand why we go barking up this same tree every 4 years. It is frustrating to be outclassed by countries with 1/10th our population and far less resources, particularly while we feel we have great athletes who dominate other sports. But I think it is completely wrong to think our USMNT would be better if only our young stars didn't have football and basketball distracting them. That's not the problem and hasn't been for a very long time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda hate the talent pool argument. I don't care who we're talking about or what they look like - any player playing for the USMNT is a tremendous athlete. Period, end of story. Could Lebron or Kobe or Wes Welker or whoever have been a better soccer player if they had focused their entire lives on soccer? Maybe. Maybe not. But if there's one thing the US is NOT lacking, it's elite athletes playing soccer. I've seen probably 95+% of the senior games for the USMNT over the last 8 years or so, and I have never once seen the USMNT be outclassed in terms of athleticism by their opponents.

Would the USMNT be better if more players focused on soccer rather than football or basketball or whatever at a young age? Most likely, just because there'd be a larger pool to draw from. But the USMNT isn't where it is today (3 advances out of the group stage in the past 4 Cups, multiple Gold Cup wins, etc.) because they don't have elite athletes on the field. It's a matter of training and coaching from the youth levels up through the senior nats, not because we lack the athleticism to compete with teams like Belgium and Portugal.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were to look at Leo Messi or C. Ronaldo or Wayne Rooney or any other great soccer player at 16, I guarantee you would never pick them out as tremendous athletes. There's no reason you should look out at a youth soccer game and see kids who look like great basketball and football players. As we discuss every 4 years, the US doesn't lose games for lack of good athletes. We almost never get out-run, out-muscled, out-jumped or out-quicked. We lose because other teams are technically and tactically superior by a very wide margin (although getting smaller imo). You can take the 10,000 greatest 10 year old athletes in this country and they still won't become great soccer players here without the proper development.

I understand why we go barking up this same tree every 4 years. It is frustrating to be outclassed by countries with 1/10th our population and far less resources, particularly while we feel we have great athletes who dominate other sports. But I think it is completely wrong to think our USMNT would be better if only our young stars didn't have football and basketball distracting them. That's not the problem and hasn't been for a very long time.

:goodposting:

Whoa....eerily similar post and we posted it 1 minute apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeldin isngetting paid 91k. He's as good as gone.

His salary has nothing to do with it per say.It is his transfer fee which will control when he goes. I am sure Seattle is going to set a huge price for him, relative to other Americans (because of age and because of his now elevated worth on the worlds stage).If some one pays it then he is gone but that is not what we are discussing. We are talking about what is good for his development, not his wallet. Yedlin was Seattle first home grown player. His transfer fee could pay for more years of developing players. It is a great sign if someone wants to grab him. Ream went for about $3m but did not have the age or the exposure Yedlin just got so I could see Seattle asking for anything in the 5-7 million range.
Can you please explain this transfer fee deal? How long does a club own the rights to a player? I have other questions but will let you start there.
Clubs own the rights to a player for as long as he's under contract with them. Effectively there's little or no "trading" in soccer -- almost everything is cash. So if a team wants to sell a player they find someone willing to pay the transfer fee and then the buying team has to come to an agreement on salary directly with the player. There are exceptions (Barcelona is considering ~45m cash + Alexis Sanchez to Liverpool for Luis Suarez right now), but even then it's couched in total transfer fee terms (45m + 35m for Sanchez = 80m).

And to answer his question of how long they control the player, it is similar to other sports.

The player signs a contract with the team for X amount of years. If the player completes the contract for the X years, he affectively becomes a free agent and he can move where ever he wants with no transfer fee attached.

Thanks guys. So how does this play down to an MLS academy or the European system. Are prop sects signing away a chunk of their career to get advanced training at the age of 14 or 15?

I am not exactly sure what a prop sect is.

By giving away career, do you mean monetarily? if so no. The transfer fee and salary are two different things.

Lets look at Diego Fagundez for example. He was paid a small amount to join the Revs academy.

By joining and excelling in the Revs academy, he was able to be MLS ready well before most other American players.

Because he was a home grown player, he was able to be paid more money than a typical rookie.

MLS has a rule where you can have up to two home grown players and they do not count against the salary cap.

Obviously in Europe there is not a salary cap like we know it, but the academies are still by far the best way to break through for young players and start to get the bigger contracts.

prospects

In your example, when he joined the academy did they get him to sign for 6-8 years? I would think these academies could get a 14 yo to sign away half of his potential career for peanuts when the option is to fight the club/college path.

You can't sign a professional contract until you come of age. In Europe, that's generally 17. I don't know what the limit is in the United States. Because of transfer fees, there's less chance of any great young talent being tied down because another team will pay the transfer fee. Seattle stands to make a very, very tidy profit on Yedlin if he goes overseas.

Thanks again for the info everyone.

So what prevents Seattle from sending Yedlin to the Iraq Liga for a transfer fee. Does Yedlin have any say in where he goes or does he have to hold out for the balance of his contract?

Yes. Two things need to happen:

1. Old club and new club need to agree to a transfer fee

2. Player and new club need to agree to personal terms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were to look at Leo Messi or C. Ronaldo or Wayne Rooney or any other great soccer player at 16, I guarantee you would never pick them out as tremendous athletes. There's no reason you should look out at a youth soccer game and see kids who look like great basketball and football players. As we discuss every 4 years, the US doesn't lose games for lack of good athletes. We almost never get out-run, out-muscled, out-jumped or out-quicked. We lose because other teams are technically and tactically superior by a very wide margin (although getting smaller imo). You can take the 10,000 greatest 10 year old athletes in this country and they still won't become great soccer players here without the proper development.

I understand why we go barking up this same tree every 4 years. It is frustrating to be outclassed by countries with 1/10th our population and far less resources, particularly while we feel we have great athletes who dominate other sports. But I think it is completely wrong to think our USMNT would be better if only our young stars didn't have football and basketball distracting them. That's not the problem and hasn't been for a very long time.

:goodposting:

Whoa....eerily similar post and we posted it 1 minute apart.

I liked both of your posts. The whole "our best athletes don't..." argument is lazy journalism trotted out periodically by people who don't really understand the sport. I think soccer will really have arrived in this country when we make it through a major tournament without hearing this old chestnut.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So everyone else learned the transfer rules by playing franchise mode on FIFA like I did, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started to argue with this -- basically who do we have that's as big and explosive as Ronaldo -- but then naked Gooch and rampaging Altidore popped into my head. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can take the 10,000 greatest 10 year old athletes in this country and they still won't become great soccer players here without the proper development.

Is "proper development" tied to individual coaches? Would it be "merely" a matter of throwing Nick-Sabanesque contracts at certain people to come to the U.S. and set up/run whatever development infratructure is necessary?

I realize that coming up with many millions to do this is probably a showstopper ... just wondering if this is the kind of problem that's essentially solvable with cash. Maybe U.S. soccer needs a T. Boone Pickens type to throw cash around :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tactics?

JK is here to stay, so that discussion is dead imo, but yesterday I heard Eric Wynalda rip into JK's tactics saying the US was playing "with one arm tied behind its back" (

). He also said the US has not advanced in 20 years since his team under Bora. Wynalda speculated that the players were likely disappointed upon seeing the squad list each game and knowing they would be held back, unable to play their game. Today I see Donovan making similar comments ("As a whole, I think tactically, the team was not set up to succeed. They were set up in a way that was opposite from what they've been the past couple years, which is opening up, passing, attacking -- trying to do that. And the team's been successful that way. Why they decided to switch that in the World Cup, none of us will know. From a playing standpoint, I think the guys will probably be disappointed in the way things went.").

Paul Gardner - unabashed fan of the beautiful game and unrelenting critic of US Soccer and defensive football, wants to bid farewell to Klinsman due to his boring "sterile" style of play - Thank you, Jurgen. And good bye. "I regard it as patently obvious that the USA, under Klinsmann, has made no advance at all in either the caliber or the style of its play." (suggesting Tab Ramos as a replacement).

Did the US play too defensively? Tellingly, neither Wynalda nor Donovan offer specifics as to how the team could have played more attacking football. And of course they don't address the possibility that a more attacking style would have likely resulted in three losses and a -10 goal differential. I didn't follow tactics in the qualification closely enough to know - was there a major change in tactics between qualification and the world cup finals? As a Chelsea fan, I am very comfortable with results-oriented football, and enjoy watching a team defend with heart, blood and soul for 120 minutes. Wondo had the game winner on his foot at the end - what more could we ask of this coach?

His biggest mistake was in the Portugal game when he went Moyes and subbed off two midfielders for defenders. He then encouraged his team to press, from basically a 6-2-2. Wondo and Yedlin pushing up with Bradley alone in the midfield. So when that ball drops to Bradley, he's out numbered 4 to 1 and the ball is easily won by Portugal and distributed wide(where there should have been a MF) top Ronaldo.

Leaving Beckerman out against Belgium was wrong too imo. Cameron was better on the ball, but he didn't break plays up like Beckerman does. Belgium had FOREVER on the ball from about 30 yards out and if not for Timmy, it could have been 8-0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can take the 10,000 greatest 10 year old athletes in this country and they still won't become great soccer players here without the proper development.

Is "proper development" tied to individual coaches? Would it be "merely" a matter of throwing Nick-Sabanesque contracts at certain people to come to the U.S. and set up/run whatever development infratructure is necessary?

I realize that coming up with many millions to do this is probably a showstopper ... just wondering if this is the kind of problem that's essentially solvable with cash. Maybe U.S. soccer needs a T. Boone Pickens type to throw cash around :D

The entire US soccer program is not struggling with cash. The funds are there.

Part of Jurgen Klinsmann's role is that of technical director for the entire US soccer program. Not just USMNT coach. Between his 2006 Germany coaching and taking over the US job in 2010, he was extremely critical of the US program from the ground up and has started to implement some of the changes he felt needed to be made.

When I went for my coaching license (E) last year, we talked fairly extensively about the way the higher-ups want you to coach. They're pretty serious about implementing things at the most basic youth levels. My understanding is that it was not like this in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:shrug: I buy the best athletes argument. While any player in the USMNT program is a better athlete than me - if there was a way to measure speed, quickness, and strength, I think we would fare poorly compared to most of the other 31 teams in the WC finals.

I don't think we have the team speed (really quickness), or strength to play toe-to-toe with the top squads. We have some players who are fast/quick, and some players who are strong, but not enough of either. Having said that, speed and strength without technical skill would be useless. I am not completely sure that you could take just anyone and move them from the basketball court, and put them on the soccer field. I think there is an innate skill of being able to control a ball with you foot (feet) - that skill may be enhanced, but I am not sure it can be effectively learned if you are not born with it - maybe it can.

Then there is also the dilemma that we have very few players who are quick of thought, so having speed, quickness, strength and technical skills won't help until that can make better decisions at game speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeldin isngetting paid 91k. He's as good as gone.

His salary has nothing to do with it per say.It is his transfer fee which will control when he goes. I am sure Seattle is going to set a huge price for him, relative to other Americans (because of age and because of his now elevated worth on the worlds stage).If some one pays it then he is gone but that is not what we are discussing. We are talking about what is good for his development, not his wallet. Yedlin was Seattle first home grown player. His transfer fee could pay for more years of developing players. It is a great sign if someone wants to grab him. Ream went for about $3m but did not have the age or the exposure Yedlin just got so I could see Seattle asking for anything in the 5-7 million range.
Can you please explain this transfer fee deal? How long does a club own the rights to a player? I have other questions but will let you start there.
Clubs own the rights to a player for as long as he's under contract with them. Effectively there's little or no "trading" in soccer -- almost everything is cash. So if a team wants to sell a player they find someone willing to pay the transfer fee and then the buying team has to come to an agreement on salary directly with the player. There are exceptions (Barcelona is considering ~45m cash + Alexis Sanchez to Liverpool for Luis Suarez right now), but even then it's couched in total transfer fee terms (45m + 35m for Sanchez = 80m).

And to answer his question of how long they control the player, it is similar to other sports.

The player signs a contract with the team for X amount of years. If the player completes the contract for the X years, he affectively becomes a free agent and he can move where ever he wants with no transfer fee attached.

Thanks guys. So how does this play down to an MLS academy or the European system. Are prop sects signing away a chunk of their career to get advanced training at the age of 14 or 15?

I am not exactly sure what a prop sect is.

By giving away career, do you mean monetarily? if so no. The transfer fee and salary are two different things.

Lets look at Diego Fagundez for example. He was paid a small amount to join the Revs academy.

By joining and excelling in the Revs academy, he was able to be MLS ready well before most other American players.

Because he was a home grown player, he was able to be paid more money than a typical rookie.

MLS has a rule where you can have up to two home grown players and they do not count against the salary cap.

Obviously in Europe there is not a salary cap like we know it, but the academies are still by far the best way to break through for young players and start to get the bigger contracts.

prospects

In your example, when he joined the academy did they get him to sign for 6-8 years? I would think these academies could get a 14 yo to sign away half of his potential career for peanuts when the option is to fight the club/college path.

ahh prospects :) I should have seen that.

When a player joins an academy, I don't think there is any real contract per say since they are not professionals. They can leave any time they want and start up some where else.

The vast vast majority of the US academy kids just grab college scholarships and go that path. Only a special few like Fagunzdez or Yedlin can make the break through to the pros, but that is suppose to be how it is.

Edited by NewlyRetired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were to look at Leo Messi or C. Ronaldo or Wayne Rooney or any other great soccer player at 16, I guarantee you would never pick them out as tremendous athletes. There's no reason you should look out at a youth soccer game and see kids who look like great basketball and football players. As we discuss every 4 years, the US doesn't lose games for lack of good athletes. We almost never get out-run, out-muscled, out-jumped or out-quicked. We lose because other teams are technically and tactically superior by a very wide margin (although getting smaller imo). You can take the 10,000 greatest 10 year old athletes in this country and they still won't become great soccer players here without the proper development.

I understand why we go barking up this same tree every 4 years. It is frustrating to be outclassed by countries with 1/10th our population and far less resources, particularly while we feel we have great athletes who dominate other sports. But I think it is completely wrong to think our USMNT would be better if only our young stars didn't have football and basketball distracting them. That's not the problem and hasn't been for a very long time.

:goodposting:

Whoa....eerily similar post and we posted it 1 minute apart.

I liked both of your posts. The whole "our best athletes don't..." argument is lazy journalism trotted out periodically by people who don't really understand the sport. I think soccer will really have arrived in this country when we make it through a major tournament without hearing this old chestnut.

problem is you won't stop hearing it until the US goes deep multiple times. Old biases die really hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm on the minority side of the argument, but one of these 6'6" weighing in at 210-230 with 4.4 speed and some insane vertical jump would be devastating up top. Seems like winning headers on corner kickers would be much easier if you can get a foot plus above everyone else and you're so big the defenders can't push you around.

Hmmm, has anyone actually tried this? I don't see why it wouldn't work, except that maybe the tall guy would be too much of a liability in the other aspects of the game. If you taught Shaq how to direct a header, how is any team going to stop him on corner kicks?

Well all I can say is that there are tall people all over the world and if this would have worked to any degree, someone would have tried it by now with a seven footer.

Tallest I can remember was Jan Koller.

I brought this up for two reasons...

1. I'm still have the opinion that on average the US has one of the best athlete pools in the world due to our size and standard of living. Even our poor kids still get food and don't have to farm 12 hours a day for the most part. I don't think our best athletes have soccer at the top of their list for the most part at this time. I've watched all kinds of youth soccer over the last several years at a regional level and it's extremely rare to see a kid stand out from an athletic standpoint. In almost every other youth spot you can pick out the best athlete and the kid(s) that will be playing D1 ball.

What happens if you take the top WR and RB off each NFL team and go back in time. At the age of 10 they never play a down of football and play soccer almost exclusively (with a path available to be seen). Most may flame out, but I think you're very likely to have an elite player that is a difference maker on a national team.

2. Been watching a 15 yo who is arguably the best player in this state in his age. He's 6'2" and 180 right now and very fast…6'6" is his expected height. Wondering if he will excel or if his size will limit his potential.

Part of what's being missed here is that the type of athlete you want for soccer is different than what you want for basketball or football. Sure, the explosiveness, fast-twitch muscles, and size/speed ratio is nice, but endurance, stamina, and balance are far more important. There's a reason the best player in the world is only 5'7" and not even 150 lbs. Those other attributes aren't as important. If they were, some of these African teams should completely dominate. And it's not as if some of those players haven't been playing all their life like many of the other European countries.

This has nothing to do with the athletic pool we have here in the US.

The african countries have more endurance/stamina short beanpole guys than anyone else based on their dominance in long distance events.

Also, baseball and basketball in this country definitely improved when the pool was opened up to include black americans.

I believe MLB has a lower % of African Americans than MLS does the last survey I saw a couple of seasons ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fwiw, quickly... I think the tactics and team shape was well suited ro the players at hand. We were a Wondo sitter away from advancing against a texhically far superior side. But we really needed a bit more offensive magic from any of bradley (who I think put in solid games), bedoya or zusi for the tactics to shine.

Speaking of axes to grind... Wynalda, Donovan and Gardner can go jump in a wood chipper.

The idea that we'd be better off trying to slug it out with those teams offensively is just silly.

I think Landon has a fair point IMO.

I think the US looked far better losing in the quarter finals in 2002 to Germany than they did in losing to Belgium in the second round in 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this works... don't know that there's enough US action to warrant separating this out, but I'm all in either way.

We can use the thread for more than just US MNT games, which are too few and far between to keep a thread active.

We want to use this thread to track US players through club play. That should help keep the thread some what busy.

Between the club play of 52 weeks a year, friendlies, and hopefully following the various youth teams in more detail, there might be enough to keep it running.

One of the reasons this was created was to give new fans who want to follow the US players more closely than once every 4 years but don't want to jump into the deep end of following a club team or leagues in depth. It should serve that purpose hopefully if we keep it stocked with info on the vast pool of players we need to track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fwiw, quickly... I think the tactics and team shape was well suited ro the players at hand. We were a Wondo sitter away from advancing against a texhically far superior side. But we really needed a bit more offensive magic from any of bradley (who I think put in solid games), bedoya or zusi for the tactics to shine.

Speaking of axes to grind... Wynalda, Donovan and Gardner can go jump in a wood chipper.

The idea that we'd be better off trying to slug it out with those teams offensively is just silly.

I think Landon has a fair point IMO.

I think the US looked far better losing in the quarter finals in 2002 to Germany than they did in losing to Belgium in the second round in 2014.

That's an argument that an England fan would make.

If you were to look at Leo Messi or C. Ronaldo or Wayne Rooney or any other great soccer player at 16, I guarantee you would never pick them out as tremendous athletes. There's no reason you should look out at a youth soccer game and see kids who look like great basketball and football players. As we discuss every 4 years, the US doesn't lose games for lack of good athletes. We almost never get out-run, out-muscled, out-jumped or out-quicked. We lose because other teams are technically and tactically superior by a very wide margin (although getting smaller imo). You can take the 10,000 greatest 10 year old athletes in this country and they still won't become great soccer players here without the proper development.

I understand why we go barking up this same tree every 4 years. It is frustrating to be outclassed by countries with 1/10th our population and far less resources, particularly while we feel we have great athletes who dominate other sports. But I think it is completely wrong to think our USMNT would be better if only our young stars didn't have football and basketball distracting them. That's not the problem and hasn't been for a very long time.

:goodposting:

Whoa....eerily similar post and we posted it 1 minute apart.

I liked both of your posts. The whole "our best athletes don't..." argument is lazy journalism trotted out periodically by people who don't really understand the sport. I think soccer will really have arrived in this country when we make it through a major tournament without hearing this old chestnut.

problem is you won't stop hearing it until the US goes deep multiple times. Old biases die really hard.

But nobody says it when the USA loses in the Olympic hockey tournament or the World Baseball Classic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeldin isngetting paid 91k. He's as good as gone.

His salary has nothing to do with it per say.It is his transfer fee which will control when he goes. I am sure Seattle is going to set a huge price for him, relative to other Americans (because of age and because of his now elevated worth on the worlds stage).If some one pays it then he is gone but that is not what we are discussing. We are talking about what is good for his development, not his wallet. Yedlin was Seattle first home grown player. His transfer fee could pay for more years of developing players. It is a great sign if someone wants to grab him. Ream went for about $3m but did not have the age or the exposure Yedlin just got so I could see Seattle asking for anything in the 5-7 million range.
Can you please explain this transfer fee deal? How long does a club own the rights to a player? I have other questions but will let you start there.
Clubs own the rights to a player for as long as he's under contract with them. Effectively there's little or no "trading" in soccer -- almost everything is cash. So if a team wants to sell a player they find someone willing to pay the transfer fee and then the buying team has to come to an agreement on salary directly with the player. There are exceptions (Barcelona is considering ~45m cash + Alexis Sanchez to Liverpool for Luis Suarez right now), but even then it's couched in total transfer fee terms (45m + 35m for Sanchez = 80m).

And to answer his question of how long they control the player, it is similar to other sports.

The player signs a contract with the team for X amount of years. If the player completes the contract for the X years, he affectively becomes a free agent and he can move where ever he wants with no transfer fee attached.

Thanks guys. So how does this play down to an MLS academy or the European system. Are prop sects signing away a chunk of their career to get advanced training at the age of 14 or 15?

I am not exactly sure what a prop sect is.

By giving away career, do you mean monetarily? if so no. The transfer fee and salary are two different things.

Lets look at Diego Fagundez for example. He was paid a small amount to join the Revs academy.

By joining and excelling in the Revs academy, he was able to be MLS ready well before most other American players.

Because he was a home grown player, he was able to be paid more money than a typical rookie.

MLS has a rule where you can have up to two home grown players and they do not count against the salary cap.

Obviously in Europe there is not a salary cap like we know it, but the academies are still by far the best way to break through for young players and start to get the bigger contracts.

prospects

In your example, when he joined the academy did they get him to sign for 6-8 years? I would think these academies could get a 14 yo to sign away half of his potential career for peanuts when the option is to fight the club/college path.

ahh prospects :) I should have seen that.

When a player joins an academy, I don't think there is any real contract per say since they are not professionals. They can leave any time they want and start up some where else.

The vast vast majority of the US academy kids just grab college scholarships and go that path. Only a special few like Fagunzdez or Yedlin can make the break through to the pros, but that is suppose to be how it is.

I'm OK with that. The upcoming death of the NCAA may help in that regard by further blurring the lines between professionals and amateurs. Everybody wins if the colleges can serve as a pipeline to MLS and the kids stay in the sport and get an education. Some players just develop at a different rate. The system won't change that radically so there will always be the occasional player who makes the USMNT following the collegiate route.

We can't expect a higher success rate than academies in other countries. Barca, Ajax, Southampton, Basel, etc. churn out a lot more chaff than wheat. It's just that we don't hear about them. If the colleges remain there as a safety net for U18s who don't turn pro, it might make things less intimidating for kids and their parents facing the decision of a young lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were to look at Leo Messi or C. Ronaldo or Wayne Rooney or any other great soccer player at 16, I guarantee you would never pick them out as tremendous athletes. There's no reason you should look out at a youth soccer game and see kids who look like great basketball and football players. As we discuss every 4 years, the US doesn't lose games for lack of good athletes. We almost never get out-run, out-muscled, out-jumped or out-quicked. We lose because other teams are technically and tactically superior by a very wide margin (although getting smaller imo). You can take the 10,000 greatest 10 year old athletes in this country and they still won't become great soccer players here without the proper development.

I understand why we go barking up this same tree every 4 years. It is frustrating to be outclassed by countries with 1/10th our population and far less resources, particularly while we feel we have great athletes who dominate other sports. But I think it is completely wrong to think our USMNT would be better if only our young stars didn't have football and basketball distracting them. That's not the problem and hasn't been for a very long time.

:goodposting:

Whoa....eerily similar post and we posted it 1 minute apart.

I liked both of your posts. The whole "our best athletes don't..." argument is lazy journalism trotted out periodically by people who don't really understand the sport. I think soccer will really have arrived in this country when we make it through a major tournament without hearing this old chestnut.

problem is you won't stop hearing it until the US goes deep multiple times. Old biases die really hard.

But nobody says it when the USA loses in the Olympic hockey tournament or the World Baseball Classic.

But the US typically goes deep in those type of tournaments.

I don't think you would hear the complaints as much if the US was a consistent semi finalist.

I don't agree with the complaints mind you, but I have heard them my whole life and I just ignore them at this point.

Spain just ended arguably the greatest run in soccer history. Almost none of the players would fit this "best athlete" fallacy that comes up once every 4 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeldin isngetting paid 91k. He's as good as gone.

His salary has nothing to do with it per say.It is his transfer fee which will control when he goes. I am sure Seattle is going to set a huge price for him, relative to other Americans (because of age and because of his now elevated worth on the worlds stage).If some one pays it then he is gone but that is not what we are discussing. We are talking about what is good for his development, not his wallet. Yedlin was Seattle first home grown player. His transfer fee could pay for more years of developing players. It is a great sign if someone wants to grab him. Ream went for about $3m but did not have the age or the exposure Yedlin just got so I could see Seattle asking for anything in the 5-7 million range.
Can you please explain this transfer fee deal? How long does a club own the rights to a player? I have other questions but will let you start there.
Clubs own the rights to a player for as long as he's under contract with them. Effectively there's little or no "trading" in soccer -- almost everything is cash. So if a team wants to sell a player they find someone willing to pay the transfer fee and then the buying team has to come to an agreement on salary directly with the player. There are exceptions (Barcelona is considering ~45m cash + Alexis Sanchez to Liverpool for Luis Suarez right now), but even then it's couched in total transfer fee terms (45m + 35m for Sanchez = 80m).

And to answer his question of how long they control the player, it is similar to other sports.

The player signs a contract with the team for X amount of years. If the player completes the contract for the X years, he affectively becomes a free agent and he can move where ever he wants with no transfer fee attached.

Thanks guys. So how does this play down to an MLS academy or the European system. Are prop sects signing away a chunk of their career to get advanced training at the age of 14 or 15?

I am not exactly sure what a prop sect is.

By giving away career, do you mean monetarily? if so no. The transfer fee and salary are two different things.

Lets look at Diego Fagundez for example. He was paid a small amount to join the Revs academy.

By joining and excelling in the Revs academy, he was able to be MLS ready well before most other American players.

Because he was a home grown player, he was able to be paid more money than a typical rookie.

MLS has a rule where you can have up to two home grown players and they do not count against the salary cap.

Obviously in Europe there is not a salary cap like we know it, but the academies are still by far the best way to break through for young players and start to get the bigger contracts.

prospects

In your example, when he joined the academy did they get him to sign for 6-8 years? I would think these academies could get a 14 yo to sign away half of his potential career for peanuts when the option is to fight the club/college path.

ahh prospects :) I should have seen that.

When a player joins an academy, I don't think there is any real contract per say since they are not professionals. They can leave any time they want and start up some where else.

The vast vast majority of the US academy kids just grab college scholarships and go that path. Only a special few like Fagunzdez or Yedlin can make the break through to the pros, but that is suppose to be how it is.

I'm OK with that. The upcoming death of the NCAA may help in that regard by further blurring the lines between professionals and amateurs. Everybody wins if the colleges can serve as a pipeline to MLS and the kids stay in the sport and get an education. Some players just develop at a different rate. The system won't change that radically so there will always be the occasional player who makes the USMNT following the collegiate route.

We can't expect a higher success rate than academies in other countries. Barca, Ajax, Southampton, Basel, etc. churn out a lot more chaff than wheat. It's just that we don't hear about them. If the colleges remain there as a safety net for U18s who don't turn pro, it might make things less intimidating for kids and their parents facing the decision of a young lifetime.

MLS also has a really cool program that if you sign a Generation Adidas contract to either bypass or end college early, that if things don't work out as a pro, they will pay for an entire college education for the kid to cover him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were to look at Leo Messi or C. Ronaldo or Wayne Rooney or any other great soccer player at 16, I guarantee you would never pick them out as tremendous athletes. There's no reason you should look out at a youth soccer game and see kids who look like great basketball and football players. As we discuss every 4 years, the US doesn't lose games for lack of good athletes. We almost never get out-run, out-muscled, out-jumped or out-quicked. We lose because other teams are technically and tactically superior by a very wide margin (although getting smaller imo). You can take the 10,000 greatest 10 year old athletes in this country and they still won't become great soccer players here without the proper development.

I understand why we go barking up this same tree every 4 years. It is frustrating to be outclassed by countries with 1/10th our population and far less resources, particularly while we feel we have great athletes who dominate other sports. But I think it is completely wrong to think our USMNT would be better if only our young stars didn't have football and basketball distracting them. That's not the problem and hasn't been for a very long time.

:goodposting:

Whoa....eerily similar post and we posted it 1 minute apart.

I liked both of your posts. The whole "our best athletes don't..." argument is lazy journalism trotted out periodically by people who don't really understand the sport. I think soccer will really have arrived in this country when we make it through a major tournament without hearing this old chestnut.

problem is you won't stop hearing it until the US goes deep multiple times. Old biases die really hard.

But nobody says it when the USA loses in the Olympic hockey tournament or the World Baseball Classic.

But the US typically goes deep in those type of tournaments.

I don't think you would hear the complaints as much if the US was a consistent semi finalist.

I don't agree with the complaints mind you, but I have heard them my whole life and I just ignore them at this point.

Spain just ended arguably the greatest run in soccer history. Almost none of the players would fit this "best athlete" fallacy that comes up once every 4 years.

They'd still be in the tournament if Ricky Rubio, Fernando Alonso and Rafa Nadal played soccer.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't expect a higher success rate than academies in other countries. Barca, Ajax, Southampton, Basel, etc.

That's kind of what I was getting at upthread -- can the Barca/Ajax/Southampton/Basel development models more or less be "bought" and exported to the U.S., given sufficent cash? Even overpaying their administrators, best youth coaches, etc. to lure them to come to the U.S.

While I understand that Klinsmann is at the top of the mountain of U.S. Soccer ... does he have the lower-level guys downstream to execute Barca/Ajax/Southampton/Basel-type player development? And if not, can those lower-level guys be imported?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MLS also has a really cool program that if you sign a Generation Adidas contract to either bypass or end college early, that if things don't work out as a pro, they will pay for an entire college education for the kid to cover him.

Colleges will always be a part of the feeder system in this country both for players and for fans. It's a relatively low cost sport for the universities and is Title IX compliant. The changing definition of amateurism will only help in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't expect a higher success rate than academies in other countries. Barca, Ajax, Southampton, Basel, etc.

That's kind of what I was getting at upthread -- can the Barca/Ajax/Southampton/Basel development models more or less be "bought" and exported to the U.S., given sufficent cash? Even overpaying their administrators, best youth coaches, etc. to lure them to come to the U.S.

While I understand that Klinsmann is at the top of the mountain of U.S. Soccer ... does he have the lower-level guys downstream to execute Barca/Ajax/Southampton/Basel-type player development? And if not, can those lower-level guys be imported?

My perception is that it's more of a cultural issue than an issue with not knowing how to develop talent. We could bring over tons of European coaches to teach the game the "right way" but that doesn't do much if American parents and kids don't buy into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fwiw, quickly... I think the tactics and team shape was well suited ro the players at hand. We were a Wondo sitter away from advancing against a texhically far superior side. But we really needed a bit more offensive magic from any of bradley (who I think put in solid games), bedoya or zusi for the tactics to shine.

Speaking of axes to grind... Wynalda, Donovan and Gardner can go jump in a wood chipper.

The idea that we'd be better off trying to slug it out with those teams offensively is just silly.

I think Landon has a fair point IMO.

I think the US looked far better losing in the quarter finals in 2002 to Germany than they did in losing to Belgium in the second round in 2014.

I think it's a fair point that we're not better than 2002 (you know I think that loss to Germany is the best game the US has ever played), but I don't think it's fair to say that this particular set of talent would have gotten better results if only we'd turned Graham Zusi and Alejandro Bedoya loose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we in agreement that Yedlin, Besler and Gonzo might be the only 3 to improve their club situations in the next couple of seasons?

*Gonzo already makes decent coin now at $1.5m a year. But I still think he could make a move to Germany if the right situation occurred.

* Besler reportedly already turned down a move to England last year but I have to assume he would still be on someones radar. I feel like he could help a mid to lower table EPL side

* We discussed Yedlin already. I feel his best bet is to stay in MLS until his rookie contract runs out (which I think is at the end of the 2015 season) and then move abroad on a free. But of all the US players he is the most likely to get some decent offers and he makes the least of any US player by far so his personal impetus to move will be high but that might be hindered by by what ever Seattle/MLS set for a transfer fee

* I don't think Zusi or Bedoya did themselves any good in terms of an upgrade in their career paths.

* Fab and Chandler are both with new Bundesliga teams starting this fall and Brooks is still with Hertha

* Green is a big concern. I really want him to get loaned some where where he can play and I don't mean the reserves. He has to get into a decent league, Bundesliga 2 would be fine for him at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fwiw, quickly... I think the tactics and team shape was well suited ro the players at hand. We were a Wondo sitter away from advancing against a texhically far superior side. But we really needed a bit more offensive magic from any of bradley (who I think put in solid games), bedoya or zusi for the tactics to shine.

Speaking of axes to grind... Wynalda, Donovan and Gardner can go jump in a wood chipper.

The idea that we'd be better off trying to slug it out with those teams offensively is just silly.

I think Landon has a fair point IMO.

I think the US looked far better losing in the quarter finals in 2002 to Germany than they did in losing to Belgium in the second round in 2014.

I think it's a fair point that we're not better than 2002 (you know I think that loss to Germany is the best game the US has ever played), but I don't think it's fair to say that this particular set of talent would have gotten better results if only we'd turned Graham Zusi and Alejandro Bedoya loose.

agreed.

In a way I feel bad for Zusi and Bedoya because everyone is pointing fingers at them. I don't think they actually played bad. I just don't think that either playing their normal game is good enough at this elite level.

I am not really getting caught up in Green's goal. I actually think he miss-hit it in a way that caught Curtious off guard. What I really loved was the run. Neither Zusi or Bedoya made that type of run during the entire WC. Some of that may have been due to tactics, but I am not even convinced Zusi would have that type of mobility.

How JK treats the wing positions in the upcoming friendlies is going to be fascinating. Starting Green and Yedlin and the wing half spots could change the entire dynamic of the team (and that could go both ways if we find that Julian can not defend)

Edited by NewlyRetired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.