not quite true. germany requires x number of licensed Germans under contract and y number of homegrown/club players. i think that is per uefa. they protect in reverse....i can limit foreigners or require domestics. same diff. serie A doesn't say 1 non-EU total, they say 1 new non-EU each year. you can accumulate -- and i think even buy and sell those exceptions. like germany they have the UEFA homegrown rule as well. spain allows 3 non-EU. france allows 5 non-EU you're ignoring 2 things. none of this counts EU which has a right to work after Bosman. second, you're ignoring is many of these countries have some mix of (a) current territories that may or may not play as other soccer nations, but count as home for player counts even if not EU (Martinique, Curacao, Suriname, etc.), (b) have easier passports for former colonies, and (c) also have "commonwealth" scheme for former colonies. so a mexican may rapidly qualify as spanish, or an ivory coast player doesn't count as external to france because of history. so a guy shows up on tv league ball or international play as "mexican" or "african" to americans but to them he's "dual national," "internal," or "commonwealth." he is not the one squeezing us out. my point is if you weed out all the spaniards and exceptions to the roster rules, and look at the back end of these leagues, sorry, but i don't buy it, some jacka$$ they are signing in these slots you suggest are the excuse, is not better than what they could get shopping american. your argument is further confused when you're like, well, moore is there as a rotational guy. my response: i thought he was good, but if he suffices for spain i have a list better than that. if you were objective you'd be saying they are all over the place, signing our leading prospects at their best age group teams, and marginal NT pool guys at their worst teams, but somehow not in between. you can present this as a put down but rationally it's just screwball and suggests we deserve better. it may be that the roster limits encourage stupid behavior. that faced with a 5 man limit and modest funds, they freak out and sign any old brazilian -- a pattern i saw -- pretending they are better than american, when the reality is any old brazilian isn't better than our best. their best would be, but that's not the roster competition i see. i see they within their limits would rather sign a no name brazilian than us. that's bias. that's not necessarily objective.
kind of like, i bet you plenty of americans would be superior choices as relegation fodder coaches. bradley did well almost everywhere he went. marsch is leading his league. even GB was midtable though he sucks. but faced with emergencies england tends to hire english. and swansea fans went nuts when bradley got brought in. and the thing is their idea of hiring english often involves coaches whose creds include getting prior teams relegated, or no success above the second division. but they would rather hire mediocre and english than take a risk on our coaches. i could see a similar dynamic in short limits. it's not that our players wouldn't fit within them. moore did. it's more likely that under the pressure of short limits one may feel pressure to fulfill soccer stereotypes. "i'll sign a brazilian. any brazilian." this is superficial CYA. called on the carpet when it goes bad that's how you will explain it to the boss. my bet is there are better americans available but you have to know that and take the risk in terms of boss and fan bias. it's also interesting that dual nationals or children of the famous get treated as exceptions to the bias. weah played in our academies and has modest first team experience. he's at lille. meanwhile our starters can't get acquired or stick further down the table. ditto rossi in italy. he played here until about HS. that didn't get held against him. but weah is "french" or "weah's kid," and rossi is "italian." last, it's worth pointing out that when the bias level used to be high they were getting some of our best players. so keller who is awesome is over there in the second division of spain. so back in the old era when we had to take anything abroad we could get, they could snap up an elite keeper, who happened to be american, because we had no other options. and as a result they would be getting players at modest teams with abundant bona fides. essentially, they could take advantage of the fact that to meet their biases you had to be awesome, and that being awesome almost meant you were over-qualified. you could see the implications of this for our players trying to sign abroad now. if you used to have to be jozy or tab or keller for spain to get it's nose out of the air, then in an era of convergence the difference should be shrinking but yet they would be stingy waiting for elite players.....who germany and others would now be snapping up instead because they take us more seriously. it's the acting like they have to be kasey keller bit that's fake. an american doesn't have to be super duper world class to be worth an international slot at more modest destinations abroad.
Being as this was all posted in the USMNT forum, I assumed that you were discussing Americans playing in those leagues. So, certainly, I did not care about EU players or former colonists or whatever. Who cares? If your point is that the 24th player on the roster could be American? Who cares? Why would Sevilla waste one of their 5 non-EU spots on their worst players? Sorry I engaged and was confused as to your point. Which, I really don't understand even after thousands of words like most of your points.
for a NT that missed the world cup we seem unfocused on that task and instead scattershot interested in this that and the other thing. org chart moves. qualifying U23. changing how we play. i know some think changing the way we play will result in the desired qualifying, but one sees that many of these theories have religious style faith in what i will term "trickle up." personally i question whether a team that didn't qualify and claims concern is that concerned with qualifying again if it ignores NT results. cause what it looks like to me is we are working on everything but the NT results and then telling ourselves all these changes to other areas will trickle back to the center. t hat is dubious and evades objectivity. for example, the effort being put into U23. prospects being left down on that team who could be on the NT. talk that pulisic may be diverted down. that might incrementally help the U23s, but their qualifying record really doesn't relate to the NT. Germany can't make the Olympics most years. GB/UK rarely participates. we only put effort into this a few months every 4 years. but yet our actions are as though fixing this is necessary to fixing the NT, and we are in fact willing to risk NT graduates and leave off players who could help the NT to do it. how does that serve the supposed core goal of the NT? how does stewart help us win? or adding mcbride? or not having half the junior coaches hired? sorry but a lot of this feels like empire building and very little of this seems concerned with whether the pool/roster of the NT is maximized, the coach is great, and results of the NT actually change and we qualify. we instead seem to be engaged in outside-in mysticism. we don't need to bend the spoon. we need to realize there is no spoon and then we will bend. that simple.
we were discussing things in terms of playing times and second divisions but look at reyna. i thought he looked excellent in the highlights i have seen, and closer to a 10 type we just don't have. he as sufficiently wowed dortmund where he is now in the first team. but we are so into our playing time criteria and lagging calls that he's uncamped and uncapped. i think GB is an extension of BA's attitude towards prospects. i have always wondered if Pulisic had come along under BA would he have been as rapidly integrated in the team. that JK would anticipate prospects' rise while the current fetish is to require first team bona fides and lag their club's impression. hence sargent played under sarachan only to have to go back down under GB and become a first team regular to get back up from U23 to the NT. absurd, but following the unwritten rule. this is not an optimized process. it's like we're almost scared of the most potentially impactful kids in the pool. we'd rather act like aaronson is a "find" and reward his first team playing time, than even slightly anticipate someone in the far more prestigious and demanding Dortmund pyramid. ditto Richards and a list. to be fair to BA, when 2017 ended, the only development beef he got was not bringing up mckennie. i think in a very near time frame people will be questioning why we slow walked a whole bunch of these new guys.
my point is not that difficult. mexicans can go play in spain as spanish passport players. curacao players can go play in holland as dutch. ivory coast gets into france as a former colony. if you cross those players off the rosters then they are not absorbing the "nonEU" slots. they are not taking our jobs. i think if you looked at who is "taking our jobs," particularly at more average or humble teams in elite first division leagues, you would question whether they are better than what we offer. you will only see that if you get who on these teams "doesn't count." it's not just nationals. it's not just EU. it's anyone who used to be a colony. it's dual nationals. "x" all them off and you will see who actually fills any of the "5 spots." so to speak. to me they often look prosaic or like some snob figured CYA i will sign anyone from brazil and assume they are better. the bottom of the barrel is not signing neymar. but they almost act like it in terms of how good an american has to be to make their squad. pure bias. the irony to me is they are exuding these self righteous attitudes sitting at the bottom of la liga with a huge negative GD and 3 wins all season. i also think if you look at moore being on a roster at the back end of spain, and de la Fuente in an elite academy, it puts in question how we don't fit in the middle in there someplace. and the fact of some restriction doesn't explain why we aren't chosen within that restriction. when players like keller used to be.
Just stop. I ignore most of your word vomit, but good lord. Reyna was announced for the Dortmund first team like four days ago. When was he supposed to be called in? Now? For a January camp everyone, including the USMNT coaching staff, believe he should turn down to go to camp with Dortmund? The rickrunde starts this weekend. Should he skip it for this camp? Seriously, the kid has made huge strides while at Dortmund. There's been absolutely no reason to call him in yet, and this massive call lag is literally nothing. And Berhalter just been afraid to incorporate the youth? What? Dest and Pomykal had great U20 World Cups and were doing well with their clubs. Dest got called in and started immediately. Pomykal got called in and got a few minutes only to get hurt. Cannon won a job at 21. Miles Robinson has been called in and so on. There's absolutely no evidence that Berhalter has an issue with youth. He's just not someone who believes the entire U20 team is better than the national team. That just makes him sane.
to give an example, espanyol. they have 4 argies and a colombian. my bet is they are all in as "colonists." that leaves a brazilian, a chinese guy, and a french guy. the chinese guy actually looks good. the french guy was sufficiently meh he was on benfica b on loan before this. the brazilian is well traveled and has about 30 appearances in 3 seasons. looks like a career back up to me. so they wouldn't even be using all 5 slots, and maybe one of those slot guys gives me any impression. don't believe me, look at it for yourself. so people were acting like the slots are filled and we're just not good enough. at least in this case, neither looks true. i grant this would likely be different at the head of the table. i also think that snobs act like all teams act on the same principles with the same quality as the head of the table, and just don't try hard enough or something. my point is we should be able to get jobs "someplace." if not, something is wrong and unlike the snobs i don't assume it's our fault. i think the reality is that if you sat down with a list of NT and MLS guys and the bottom halves of several of these leagues, you could figure out plenty of homes, roster rules or not. that it does not work out that simple suggests bias and/or that the roster rules may result in teams favoring nationals of name brand countries whether they are any good or not. espanyol can say they signed guys from "world champion france" and "brazil." the french guy even has one cap. look at their resumes and it's less impressive. and their competition is not "average putz from MLS" but probably our NT regulars. i kind of doubt cannon is worse than some RB who was previously on loan to Benfica B. and so a pro American discussion of our fate would begin. and people might consider non merit reasons interceding between us and abroad in some countries. or that this goes in fashion cycles and based on NT not qualifying we're out of fashion -- even if the kids are who you might really want and they seem excellent.
are you dense? my point is why are reyna richards weah sargent getting slow walked and instead i see these others. you can absurdly twist that into "but he likes youth" but it's like he walks right past the very good ones in european age group teams and instead picks the ones getting first team playing time. what you're missing is you're listing the b team prospects. not the a team guys. he is sandbagging the a team to select the b team. and thus kayo servania cappis and aaronson in a camp before the best guys off the U20s. oh but this too is "evidence he likes kids." what you're confused about is that he is doing so in nowhere close to the order a sane and bright scout would try these players out. why? because it's about who is getting first team PT as opposed to who is the bigger deal. you're throwing around age (17) like it should be an impediment when we had adu in at 16, pulisic at 18. mckennie and green at 19. landon went from U17 to NT before he appeared for U20. sorry but you are basically demonstrating the flawed GB mentality. but age. but not yet first team. etc. if five second later they are first team what exactly was the hold up, and why am i seeing some U20 mediocrity from the danish league before a first teamer from germany? and are we going to pretend he only became known the past couple months? and are you going to pretend dest didn't get fast tracked for reasons having to do with the race to tie him down? and i am not saying do this with everyone. i want to fast track a short list. but we are now doing it backwards where being a special player who goes abroad to an elite team is almost guaranteed to hold you back in terms of getting drafted in. So aaronson is first team material but weah when healthy is U23?
to give another player, richards, who was probably the best of the U20s and had an obvious future, but he too we must wait for Bayern to work through its system. and so we get to see, i dunno, sam vines instead, who is barely older. the irony being that by the time he actually gets first team playing time, we will then say his resume puts the other guy to shame. as though you weren't choosing it the other way five minutes ago based on who was playing for their first team that second. recall how sargent was treated. barely got a chance pre gold cup. sent down to U23s. makes werder first team full time and scores a couple goals and suddenly is the #2. i could have told you that based on 2018 NT stats. "but playing time." "but first team." "but age." if you don't get how this whipsawing around on your best prospects is stupid, sorry, can't help you. and lest we pretend, not everyone getting called up for full NT games on international dates is a god either. my thing is, you watch, many of them won't be around for march just the same. and if not then, then unlikely summer or fall. and before long that's the cycle. and when the cycle ends they are 21 and you slowwalked them away from the team. in favor of what. to me in 2-3 years as careers start to play out some of these selection choices are going to look idiotic. just like his tactics. "this guy got to play, and that other guy couldn't get above U23?" you can defend his choices and mimic his thought process. i will gladly win the long term on this discussion.
and this whole thread is stilted and jacked. tactics aren't usually a philosophical discussion. if come at from a practical rather than tweed jacket with patches perspective, the results are mediocre and the team looked under-drilled. normally if that was the case, you'd get canned and like JK you could claim you were working on a project that was not given enough time but would have made the world cup semis if you'd been left be.*** you don't normally elevate tactics as theory twenty rungs above does any of it actually work. similarly, i think in a couple years the perverse selection decisions will be clowned on. they too can be justified better in the abstract than in reality. in reality the veterans he kept around and the order in which the prospects were trialed will be laughed at, in a few years. he will be able to offer age and playing time logics why. scientifically with the passage of time these tools will look retrograde -- we'd already grown past these ideas and had to get dumber to use them -- and stupid. so much of what the US is doing has a "logic" or "philosophy" but in a scientific sense with the benefit of hindsight -- or even to some degree now -- will look batsh*t when analyzed for wisdom. as Walter Sopchak noted, "even Nazis had an ethos." i guess it's an internet thing where anyone who can string thoughts together into a logic gets followers, even if watching the team should make you question everything from a perspective of actual rigor. one thought is not as good as another. if your argument is this theory will win, show me wins. for the time being telling me that if we stick with this the theory will create wins, is just showing me the theory twice. ***as a practical person, to me JK's theory he would have made the semis left alone, is roughly as valid or predictive as GB fans saying this is the wave of the future. the only reason they are not equated is some have gotten religion on GB and/or GB 433 PrettyBall. otherwise you make the world cup semis winning games.
Are you dense? I'm not sure how you can say Reyna is getting slow walked. Your point was that he's practicing with the senior team! Which happened like two weeks ago, and it was literally days that it was announced he'd continue. Weah chose to join the U20s, then got hurt. There's literally been no opportunity there. Even Sargent, who I agree should have been at the Gold Cup, has gotten 370 of 540 available minutes since then. You do understand that the youth that is in January camp is the youth US Soccer could get to come? This is JANUARY CAMP. Of course, it is mostly MLS! Sargent has freaking first team games this weekend. Weah is still hurt, but Lille is in camp. Richards and Reyna are in their club first team camps and Reyna has a first team game this weekend! Ledezma turned down an invite for that reason, but Llanez is there. Who was a strong performer at the U20s. And is based in Europe. These are facts -- you choose to ignore them. There's absolutely no doubt that Berhalter -- and every coach in humanity -- would play younger kids slower than you are proposing. Which if I am understanding, is that any prospect in a youth league should be called up? But you are criticizing him for not calling in Reyna, citing things about Reyna that literally weren't true the last time there was a call up. You're ignoring Dest for convenient reasons, and ignoring that Tim Weah chose to stay with the U20s and has been hurt since then. Your entire argument has minimal factual basis and downright makes false claims several times. And you amazingly don't seem to understand the limitations of a camp not in a FIFA time period.
Richards is a CB playing RB. Sam Vines is a LB. Sam Vines is in MLS which will release players. Richards is with Bayern Munich which will not. Vines is here to prep for the Olympics. Richards would be here if Bayern would allow it. Factually incorrect again. Sargent was never sent down to the U23s. He was not on the U20 team because it went for the Gold Cup. Should have made the roster, though. But not what you said. Not at all what happened. Lost out on the Gold Cup roster when Lletget got hurt and Berhalter felt he couldn't carry 3 CFs, which largely had to do with Altidore's general fragility. In subsequence play, has not seized the job from Zardes, so if you are trying to win the Gold Cup, it might not be a decision for the future, but it might make sense for the moment. Berhalter also repeatedly talked about how certain players WON'T need first team experience to break through and literally cited Sargent as an example. While I suppose this is possible, Sargent took it as intended, worked his ass and got in a better position with Werder and impressed club and country coaches with his response. So, now, it didn't hurt Sargent from "whipsawing." They may not be there for March. But please, what prospect has been "slowwalked" for years here? Where's the basis for this? Just because someone isn't called in for a January camp while they try to win minutes with their club doesn't give any evidence to slow-walking. In 2-3 there's a good chance Gio Reyna is a beast. But let's take a little lesson from Josh Sargent ... who I love, and think will be great. But he hasn't outplayed Zardes and he hasn't outplayed Altidore. He will, but he hasn't. Aren't you the guy who doesn't want Dest because he makes defensive mistakes? And yet, you're so dead certain all of these players are absolutely ready to seize a spot. Some of these guys will be great, some will bust. It won't kill us to wait until March ... or gasp, even later to make sure that they are ready to contribute. though I'd love to see more on the Pomykal/Aaronson trial call up. But it's absurd to ask why Reyna isn't in January camp or claim Weah is being slowplayed -- the dude is literally hurt.
Wait, I understand that Berhalter made some convoluted argument how an injury to a midfielder limited his forward selections, which didn't make a whole bunch of sense. But it makes even less sense that you take 2 forwards instead of 3, because one of the ones that you keep is injury prone.
which would be my response back as well. the soccer doesn't look good or fluid. the results are mediocre. if this was judged by "does this make us a winner" on an objective basis you would say "no" to concrete results and "no" to is it becoming slick and results will soon follow. other coaches have tried and then dropped things before. other coaches have been fired for having ideas that didn't work. you judge the coach not by merely being a change agent but by showing results from that change. otherwise any idiot can tell people to line up different and try and play different. and in the internet era they would have plenty of sycophants parroting their logic. having that work to beat world class teams or even regional opposition is a different story. but the sales pitch is that this will become pretty possession soccer that will get results. without objectivity that is basically religion. it's like JK saying if he'd been left to his devices his team makes the semis. to bring this back to facts, normally if you have been hired to turn a ship around there are objective signs of whether this is occurring. speed changes. the boat points at different angles. there are also signs of whether this is being done competently. does the boat list. does the boat capsize and sink. and this is not saying tactical changes don't work. this is saying THESE tactical changes and selections don't. when JK was hired the team starting playing different and got upset results against name opposition. that is not religion. those are signs the boat is turning. we are about to enter qualifying. where are the signs the boat is turning. bringing it full circle, my point was that so much of the current tactical and selection nonsense is justified in terms of mantras whose accuracy and productivity are given religious belief as opposed to scientific testing. you could tell me we needed to play a 424 and espouse some sort of logic to support it. we then test it. if it doesn't work, we don't continue saying we need to change the team, or at least do so in that way. if the mechanism is working it should deliver results. if it doesn't deliver results we are only doing this as religion or snoobbery. likewise, i was saying we seem to be working on everything but the NT results, with my guess a quasi-religious belief that it will "trickle up." that say if the U23s qualify for a change this somehow changes the NT. but in practice the NT is short the U23 players and we're even talking about farming down some people like pulisic. that may then have follow on consequences for who we feel ready to put on a NT qualifying field. so this quasi religious idea of fixing other things to fix something else may result in the peripheral things changing but not the center, the one thing we really care about.
I agree it wasn't a great overall decision because Jozy barely played -- a gamble that didn't pay out, I think. But Berhalter's 23 man rosters, and especially at that time, was 3 goalies and 20 outfield players, with a starter and backup for each position exactly. Lletget was going to cover LW and CAM backup ... when he got hurt, Berhalter decided he needed to replace him at both positions, meaning he needed to add two players to the roster. Hence he didn't have the roster space to carry 3 strikers in a 1 striker system. My point isn't that it was a good decision -- I would have brought Sargent. My point was that Sargent wasn't left behind because he wasn't playing first team soccer, or because he's just too young. He was supposed to go. Jozy was (and still is) Berhalter's #1. So he brought him. Even if only for Mexico ... an apparently only for a short time. If Jozy could have played 90 v Mexico, I think we win and the gamble pays off in the short term. And, as we've seen since, it's not like Josh is blowing away Zardes yet. So he took someone more reliable as his backup. This is conjecture by me, but reasonable conjecture. With Jozy that not ready, Zardes + Sargent would have made more sense. But again, it's not because there was a conscious effort to slowplay anyone. Honestly, I cared less about results in the Gold Cup than Berhalter did, but given the public reaction when the US loses a friendly, it's hard to blame him for thinking he needs to win.
Repeating failed logic is not the same as explaining it. We all know what GB said, it made no sense then and makes even less sense now. He brought a winger he refused to play. So, right there, is a forward spot he could have used for Sargent. Sargent or Zardes can play LW as well as a player that wasn't trusted to get a single minute. He brought 5 CBs, he could have dropped one to carry a high potential young player. The only thing that is logical is that GB thought Zardes far superior to Sargent and was simply wrong on Lewis and brought Omar as a favor for a friend. But there is no logic to bringing Lewis and Omar and leaving Sargent at home.
Wait, wasn't Lewis the backup left-wing for the Gold cup? How many do you need? Based upon his international career, any coach that doesn't bring two backups for Jozy to a tournament is pretty foolish. Edit: it looks like Patrick already took care of this.
Lewis was the LW added along with, originally Holmes, and then Djordje.He was not going to make the roster if Lletget did. I don't disagree this is risky. I literally said so in my post. My point was simply that Berhalter's reasoning from not bringing Sargent was not that he wasn't in the first team or some element of "slowplaying." I'm not saying that he wouldn't have been more valuable than Lewis (with Pulisic playing the role of 4th winger), or carrying four cornerbacks and Tim Ream (although that means if Ream swings over ... more Lovitz!).
I'm not trying to defend the decision. With Pulisic being flexible to wing and Ream being flexible to CB (he came as a LB and mostly played there), you could have gotten away with brining 3 strikers. I merely was stating that Berhalter wasn't not playing Sargent because he didn't have first team caps or was slow playing him. He played overconservative with backups at every position, he did rate Zardes over him (though not necessary for it to be by a lot) and he wanted Jozy there (seemingly just for Mexico). Not the decision I'd have made. But not because he's slow playing young players.
I will deal with this in more depth at some other point, getting into the whole roster and who he had around as coverage for what. People can bs you. The question is as much, was he even sincere, as does the logic stated follow or work. I think someone who says a player is The Future but then cuts them is either confused or BSing me on the logic used. People can be wrong. At this point he'd probably have Sargent as his #2 CF. That alone brings his summer decision into question. That he himself reversed. While he needs to explain his stupidity beforehand, to justify it, can't I with the benefit of hindsight still call even a logical justification, in fact wrong, knowing how events went? I don't get it, it's like we entered this internet zone or religious cult where if you have a logic your decisions suffice. That GB has an idea and he explained it, and his decision tracks it, and it's it and that's that. How about, we struggled for CF goals the whole knockout round and lost the final scoreless? How about, setting aside our winning obsession, we already had a book on Jozy and Zardes and really needed to know what else we have. And then having let them squeeze out the other options instead confirmed we have a problem, for which we then had tried few other answers for tiny minutes. Hence the minute Sargent gets first team time and scores some, he gets the fall shot he should have gotten over the summer. I swear this is like dealing with some religious people. "But he had a plan for them." This is sports, not a cult. Did the plan actually work? You are free to use after the fact learning he would not have known, or at least did not let himself learn at the time through his choices. ..........ditto Bradley and a list of the other odd, pointless debates he triggers. The decisions are patently wrong with the benefit of hindsight. He has idea. Idea plays. Idea sucks. In Normal NT Land, that would resolve that. On to the next one and The Idea doesn't get called again for 2 years. That he has an explanation why he did them doesn't make that better, it perhaps makes it worse because his logical theories, if pushed aside, are often still in threat on the sideline or will be called the next time if left out this time. Will Trapp is thoroughly disproven at this point. He is also routinely back in the squad. There is a theory why he is included. The theory doesn't work. At some point -- and it really shouldn't take more than 1-2 games at this level -- practical results should override religion or theory??????????? Your system is bearing no practical fruit. This that and the other selection is just wrong. I get the boss is the boss but normally that lasts like a few games for a system and 1-2 games for a trialist. Put up or shut up. It's "religion" that this lasts longer than that. Otherwise, if a system works it starts to look good and make you win. If selections are right the players shine. This is the opposite. In a few years when he is allowed to be fired it will reduce down to a tiny tribe that still want to defend DUMB SYSTEM and DUMB PERSONNEL like they can justify each other without SCOREBOARD.
GB didn't have to think that Zardes was "far superior" to Sargent to favor the former over the latter. He just had to think that Zardes was superior. I agree, though, that he definitely should have kept Sargent in lieu of Lewis.
I think he did rate Zardes over him and still did in November. According to Jozy, Zardes was ahead of him at the start of the GC. I do think GB thinks Sargent has a higher upside than Zardes and it isn't far away, which is why he played him in the Fall quite a bit. If the point was the Sargent exclusion doesn't show a bias against young players, that is fine. It was one of many mistakes GB has made. Cupcakers were present in large numbers in all camps and rosters in 2019; but that didn't necessarily have to be because the alternatives were young, no doubt.
I guess my thinking, and it is using logic which doesn't always explain Berhalter, is that if he thought they were close, he would take the younger, higher upside player. Therefore, he had to think Zardes was a much better option, just not a marginal possible upgrade. GB said Sargent was the, "USMNT striker of the future," upon cutting him, so he must have thought he has higher upside than Zardes. But, it is possible it was between Jozy and Josh, and Zardes was the starter. That is how the tournament started. The media explained that as, "obviously Jozy isn't fit." But the US Soccer media often jumps to their own conclusions like that. Jozy said he was healthy and just not selected.