U.S. Soccer officials will assess their efforts in wake of U-17, U-20 World Cup failures.
If the U.S. under-17 team’s ride to the semifinals two years ago, followed by the Olympians’ just-out-of-the-medals finish in Sydney, seemed to augur well for the future of American soccer, then what do this summer’s failures by the U-20s in Argentina and U-17s in Tobago portend?
Are the results of under-age championships reasonable barometers for player development?
Is the U-17 residency program in Bradenton, Fla., where John Ellinger has been schooling groups of 20 or so players since January 1999, paying dividends? Should it be expanded to accommodate more players? Should similar programs be created for other age groups, for U-14s and U-16s, or U-20s?
Where do we go from here?
Myriad questions, with few easy answers, await U.S. Soccer officials when they gather in early October to grapple with youth-development issues and evaluate the U-17s’ three-and-out performance at their World Cup.
Among them: What is the Federation’s role in youth development? How best to allocate limited resources? What can be done to counter deficiencies in the Americans’ game?
“I don’t think it’s possible to make any easy decisions about this,” says U.S. Soccer executive vice president Sunil Gulati. “Is there cause for concern? Yes. But these are long-term issues.”
There is cause for concern, not necessarily over the results compiled by the U.S. youth teams. The U-20s advanced to the second round of the World Youth Championship in June. The U-17s had the misfortune of being in the same first-round group with finalists France and Nigeria.
That neither squad met elevated expectations isn’t the problem, those in charge submit. How they failed to meet expectations – that’s another matter. In both tournaments, the Americans appeared overmatched technically and tactically. Finishing was subpar, crossing worse and an inability to deal with high pressure proved deadly.
“I think you have to measure results carefully,” USSF secretary general Dan Flynn says. “What concerns us, or at least draws our collective attention, is our lack of comfort with the ball.
“In terms of speed and athleticism, I think we’re pretty good, but our technical advancement is something we have to look at with a finer-tooth comb than maybe we have in the past.”
Everyone agrees that ultimate responsibility for developing players should be shouldered by the pros. MLS’s Project-40 is designed to develop some players, and D.C. United, the Chicago Fire and the MetroStars have started youth academies, but needed is a full reserve-and-youth-teams component – the European model – that MLS is not yet in position to adopt.
The Federation is considering expanding the Bradenton residency from 20 players to 30 or 40. Less likely is residency for the U-20s or for younger groups.
“Every year players are getting better and better, but it has to happen on a broader scale,” acknowledges Robert Contiguglia, U.S. Soccer’s president. “We need an identification process [to find] more talented players and get them into an environment where they can be the best they can be.”
U-17 residency has aided a few dozen players, although many from the ’99 group saw their strides shortened in college soccer. Others, such as DaMarcus Beasley, Bobby Convey and Eddie Johnson, have been developing more rapidly in MLS.
“Any time you increase that number [of players in residency], it’s a plus,” says U.S. headcoach Bruce Arena. “But if you really think that will improve the overall development of players in this country … it’ll still be 30 or 40 players instead of the thousands you need.”
Flynn says U.S. Soccer would like to find a way to replicate what it has done in Bradenton, “in a different way.”
One thought is satellite academies to accompany what’s happening in Bradenton. Bringing U-14s into residency is problematic, given American culture, but more, and longer, U-14 camps may help. So might a U-20 residency program that might enable more players to forgo college.
“The question is allocation of resources,” Contiguglia says. “We have to look at where we’re going to get the best benefit. If you put x amount of dollars toward [the U-20s] – well, if you put the same money toward the 14s or 17s, the return may be better.”
Ellinger already has nine players from the 1986 pool and will begin scouting ’87s during a Cocoa, Fla., tournament at Thanksgiving. The next residency begins in January.
It’s not the long-term answer, Arena says: “Players in the current youth system are only going to go so far The real secret is not residency, it’s getting these kids into a professional environment every day, and more kids.”
How to do so? That’s the question.
by Soccer America Senior Editor Scott French