Could be that GB thought it a toss up, or, even favorable to JS but that it was better for a very young striker to get rest during the summer so he can start the season fresh with his club and help secure a starting spot.
The USMNT scored 35 goals in 18 games in 2019 which while superficially impressive includes 25 goals in 5 of those games (Cuba x2, TnT home, Canada home, Guyana home). In the more difficult rest of the schedule we had 10 goals in 13 games. That's not even >1 per game. Of those teams only Canada would make the Hex and as the precarious 6th choice, and we split games home and away with Canada. We were shut out 5 times in 18 games (just under 1/3 of fixtures), by Mexico x2 (home), Jamaica home, Venezuela home, and Canada away. Each of the Concacaf teams that shut us out would make the Hex. Looking at GC overall, the vast majority of the production came from the left wing spot. We are a 433 team where the left and right wings take turns leading the team in scoring. Surely one of the snobs can grasp where that sounds odd. The 433 is a striker showcase.... In the knockout round of GC, the goals were scored by McKennie and Pulisic, not any CF. I repeat, we play a 433 and had no striker goals in the knockout round of a regional tournament. It's laughable to defend the decision when his own response to what happened, after Sargent showed him up, was to bring Sargent in and give him playing time and starts in LoN. He wasn't just filler, he basically stepped into Jozy's role. I also have a feeling that none of these "slashes" or AMs who the coach claimed squeezed him out, did much with their time. Roldan was the regular AM/RF sub. Roldan has set up approximately jack squat for the NT in 2 years. So you're saying, the coach decided he needed "cover" instead. That is logical. But we know how the tournament actually went. How did "cover" do? Not any good. Or even more pointedly, contributed at the rate we would expect Sargent to. Which is the real standard. While I think Sargent looked a little shaky at CF, and am thus not sold he is the absolute future, he has 5 goals in 12 games in 2 years (goal every 2.4 games). He rates out at 2-3 goals in that GC conservatively. In those 2 years Zardes had one more goal (6) in 17 games (goal every 2.8 games) as Coach's Pet. I get the logic of "age," "experience," and "we were playing to win." But with the benefit of hindsight we know (a) we didn't actually win GC being cynical and backwards, (b) we only made it out of LoN on a tiebreak, and (c) his experienced elders sucked in the meaningful knockout part of GC, and disappeared against Mexico and Canada away ie The Real Games. We know he has the superior strike rate this cycle. We even know the coach basically swapped him in for Altidore. Sometimes they outright say I made a mistake, or sometimes they just play someone else. This is what passes for a coach saying ooops. And beyond that, there is the basic notion that we should already know Zardes is marginal and Jozy is old, and that by sending them back out there for a key chance to try things, we're basically saying, nah, we're good. And then the reversal says even dimwit figured out, maybe not so much, with just a few international dates before it Gets Real, having burned the 8 game summer and barely given anyone new a chance.
Also, that GC team was basically "we're out to win a trophy and feel comfortable." We then didn't win the trophy. I am curious when cynical trophy chasing US fans wake up to the idea that with this pool your trophies are in the prospects. That every time we "select to win:" we don't. And to me this is like about 6 years of conservative selections chasing trophies and the one time we actually won anything an experimental team played the whole group round. There is actually a fairly consistent history of losing to Mexico with the starters, and of losing GC 2015, losing CA 2016, losing the regional playoff, losing the Hex, losing GC 2019, and then barely escaping LoN. Kids are risky but against that track record so is doing nothing. Maybe it's we used to be a quarterfinal team but even as we suck we oddly seem to think the best chance to win is inertia.
Also, everyone seems to ignore that Wood has scored on good European and S. American teams, and most of the Hex level sides; Green has scored on Belgium and France; and Sargent has a decent strike rate. Against that background you pick someone whose regional high water mark is a goal on Canada, who has a lousy strike rate, and who has scored twice in a 6 year international career when we scored 2 goals or fewer. Twice. All the rest we scored 4 or 6 goals. That should hint at the sort of game he scores in. What we need is the guy who can score the lone goal in a tensely fought Mexico 1-0.
I think that is the kind of thing the US Soccer media would say when presented with a scenario that doesn't make sense. "Sarachan didn't call Jonathan Gonzales, they must have left him as a favor to Monterrey". That was widely reported but wasn't at all true, Sarachan/Arena just didn't rate him. If it were the case though, why not say it? GB said he took Zardes over Sargent. JS didn't make the cut. If you are only cutting a player to help their club career, that is a strange way to announce it. Plus, it is the Gold Cup, if you are bringing Pulisic, McKennie, Holmes, Adams, Steffan etc., why leave Sargent? Sargent had more of an established spot than Pulisic or Steffan.
Still one of my favorite US Soccer fan/USSF defender rationales..."This player is young, let him SETTLE IN." 6 months later, miss the World Cup. I'd like someone to do an analysis (juve seem to have time) of all the players that either A. benefited from SETTLING IN, and B. had their careers completely ruined by being called to a NT and not being allowed to SETTLE IN.
Play a 17 yr old every chance you get and see what is left when the WC rolls around. That is brilliant, too.
Are we seriously debating who the starter is? That huge Canada home game, who starts? Exactly. Zardes started the first 4 friendlies of the year -- even as he struggled -- started the first 2 games of GC, and started the quarter. When the tournament began he was the clear starter. Suggesting otherwise also involves an odd bit of Ignoring How Berhalter Operates. He then started Mexico and Canada away. Jozy was back playing MLS in January 2019, wasn't called until the summer pre tournament friendlies. Played 45' as a sub in one of them. Then sat the GC opener. Played 16' as a sub in game 2. Played the squad rotation game. Now, it is telling that Jozy started the last 2 knockouts and Sargent started Canada away. That communicates to me he lacks faith in His Guy with the money on the table. But then for the balance of the schedule, softer opponents, he likes his "inning-eater" starter, Gyasi. Gyasi only looks decent because every coach he has plays him endless minutes. So he accumulates some goals over time, and when you're starting someone you remember him. You forget it took him nearly 20 games to get those 6 goals. This is a MLS coaching mentality. The internal confusion of the logic should be readily apparent. I would set my starter on the big-game guy -- as I suggested above. He instead like a MLS coach sets his lineup based on who feasts on San Jose. When you can't score on Mexico or LAFC you should then know exactly why. FWIW this is not a reversible logic. Wood and Sargent and Green can score on teams Gyasi cannot. Normally a baseball team goes and gets Verlander as its #1 starter and not some guy who pitches a lot of innings and wins slightly more than he loses. And if he loses enough big games they re-think whether he's their #1. They don't start a guy further back in the rotation for world series game 1 and still call him their ace. We are in a between "cognitive dissonance" state. We get the problem. We refuse to fix it. And more broadly we have a ton of inning eater mediocrity type choices eg Roldan. I am at a loss how we expect to win with a bunch of grinders and half a$$ hybrids. I want people who are special players and actually good and productive at their job.
Salient argument. Just what I was proposing... Though playing 17 years olds, I suspect, would have us miss the World Cup...which is what we did anyways. Real happy we let Jon Gonzalez SETTLE IN. Same with McKennie during GC 17. Surely if Wes had helped in the latter stages of qualifying, he would have flamed out at Schalke and been working at Home Depot now.
I think it was precisely the opposite. The people talking about June act like March didn't happen. Given the choice and their health he left Sargent and Weah out. He can retroactively frame it as "I wanted to jump start his career," but what he'd be really saying is until he got regular first team minutes I saw him as YNT fodder. You can go down a list of prospect choices and almost without fail he takes the guy with playing time on a first team over the other choice, even if the second guy is rated higher by our own YNT system and "Europe," as reflected in the particular team they are signed at. Some see it as MLS bias but once Sargent crosses the threshold he too gets considered. It's absurd because Reyna, Richards, etc. are already on the cusp of first team anyway but you're going to wait for some arbitrary outside stamp of approval. It's the same player before and after that stamp is adhered. It's perverse. I know It's not quite how reality works, but it's like a NFL team that passed on the high draft board college kids -- heisman candidates, etc. -- to draft young CFL players because they have pro tape.
I agree, It is a maxim, often repeated, with no basis in any reality. It is usually used to explain why an MLS player was included in a summer roster versus a European player. As a BVB fan, I can't remember any time any other NT did this and left a player to train for this purpose. Guys either go to their NTs if they are good enough or not. Sometimes, players without a club, ask to be excused. But in general, nothing is happening in June, the training missed is not critical as most of the players are late because of international duty. The idea a player could so impress the coach in the early days of training camp, playing with academy kids, that he would get moved ahead of a German International (for example) is ludicrous. I think it more likely that being on TV, scoring goals to win tournament games, would be more impressive to a coach than scoring in a 5-aside practice game with the kids.
I had a thought. Is this what happens when "scouting" (go watch him and tell me what you think) is replaced by "analytics?" (i ran the numbers and here's what they say) i keep thinking one of the reasons the prospects struggle to get included is that while a scout would have an opinion on a threshold first team prospect an analyst would say "he has no (or few) first team minutes, i can't run anything on him." and give up. which then leads to the perceived perversity of aaronson being a regular camper while bigger prospects either aren't called or capped any faster. aaronson has numbers. he can be analyzed. a scout might say you're nuts, as would the U20 coach who cut him. but if analysis is running the team it is what it is.
Rest is what occurs in June. For players who play in summer tournaments, they get their ~ 3 weeks of rest after they return to the club from the tournament. They join in with the club training well after it has started. And, they get phased in with conditioning, etc. It is just tougher on younger players. Obviously, some more than others.
I agree there is a cost. But many players are in the same situation. I just don't think the coach changes his depth chart based on it. I do think having success for your NT can give you confidence and momentum coming into club camp and season though.
There are plusses and minuses and it is different for each player, situation, etc. I don't care about GB one way or the other but I do know coaches make decisions based on things not always obvious to all. I really doubt that he thinks Zardes is the long term solution over Sargent.
You look at the value of the added time with the player you are loading up, and perhaps at how that player handles accumulated playing time. I have heard Olympic rumors on Pulisic. I think this ignores how the player responds to too much work -- he runs down -- and adds no new value to the system, as Pulisic is a known quantity. Personally I think the template got set without regard to its end state. In plain English a lot of the ideas of how to handle stars were framed on the first half of Landon's career. Load him up. Call him whenever possible. People ignore that he burned out at the end and didn't make his last world cup team. Maybe that shouldn't be the template. Maybe we are overrating the value of "one week attempts at chemistry" and underrating "rest" or "having him fresh when we need him" or "identifying someone else who can play left wing." To me USMNT is a starf*cker without sufficient clue to realize you need a whole team to win. There are plenty of regional teams with a couple stars. Guatemala has had Pescadito for years. Jamaica has Bailey. Canada has Davies. The really good teams have more than a couple is the difference. The more we obsess about one or two players the more we get like the also rans. Get to know the rest of the pool. The idea is to have several good players so that Pulisic can get individual treatment of what works for him, as opposed to hanging the whole team around his neck and trying to browbeat him into call ups.
The flaw in the pseudo objectivity of "Zardes isn't the long term solution, but...." is he's not the short term solution, either. He was handed the keys to the car and drove 55 and showed up late to work. ie he blew the Gold Cup and has 6 goals in 2 years. You are really just laying out an elegantly disguised excuse for settling/inertia. It's the internet game of "well who better than that." There are 3 better options who can score on a better type of opponent. We just have lost the phone number of two such options and the third is the backup. "Kids are risky?" So is a forward who can't score on anyone any good and gets goals every 5 games. In a mediocrity situation inertia has its own consequences and risks. The suggestion novelty is the only risk is false. The implication is we have no other choice except there are 3-4. The idea this road ends at Zardes basically only makes sense if you make a wrong turn while hiking and then set up camp there, then fret about whether to try to find civilization. Hint: you're not Bear Grylls. Look for a road out. I don't understand people who think it's ok to go into qualifying with a forward who hasn't scored regionally on a team better than Canada. Particularly when you have other choices. For some reason people don't connect up "scattershot striker" with "held scoreless by Mexico." When we had a final with them that was basically decided by one guy with one chance could put his shot in the cage off the bar and we wasted a bushel.
Naive is just too kind of an assessment! https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-...bedoya-critical-of-usmnts-naive-style-of-play
There is a basic logical flaw in the argument we shouldn't elevate people to the NT before they make their first team. In the case of a player like Gio Reyna, you aren't brought up to your first team before you are ready. You are ready before you are moved up, at least enough for government work. A NT properly scouting its players can anticipate specific leading prospects on the fast track and anticipate their rise. Landon, Pulisic, Beasley, Adu, etc. The premise of the anti- argument is that we don't know they're first team material until they are made so. This is basically a disavowal of doing your own scouting and of the fact that first team status is usually earned before given. It's a lazy deferral to the club or a stubborn insistence on the very first team appearances the player shortly thereafter supplies. Gio Reyna is now making first team appearances which means his club is recognizing his rise faster than we are. Congrats you are officially behind the curve.
I agree with the thrust of your argument but in the case of Reyna you are wrong. Reyna has certain talent but even his few minutes at Dortmund showed him doing stuff that left his team in the position of having to defend unnecessarily. The fact that he will have that deficiency coached out of his game doesn't mean that we should call him up before that happens - it means we should wait for it to happen then call him up.
hes made one first team appearance less than 20 hours ago. i think its customary to wait a full rotation around the sun before smugly acting like you were there first, nostradamus...
thanks for the explicit statement of GB-logic. he was involved in a win as a sub, too, on a good team. but let's pretend the truly special player needs a track record at club to convince. again, i am not saying any old kid gets this callup. have some of you seen the kid play? he's exceptional. snob-logic is becoming rife. we have people in camp cupcake now with far less talent. and i realize he's not available but let's be honest about the requisite level. all he has to do is be better than bradley yueill roldan et al. and i think from the footage i have seen that he is a special, pulisic-type talent. and pulisic barely got off age group ball before being capped. fwiw.morris got his first cap in college. green was called from age group bayern. [and pulisic was brough in early too.] but klinsi had cajones. you'd rather whine about "but he's a kid." wayne rooney was scoring in the EPL at 16. there is no cut off. and you're missing my basic logic which is that our job is not to follow dortmund's stamp of approval but rather to do our own scouting and anticipate such meteoric rises. dortmund thinks he's ready for first team bundesliga but i guess you know better or something.
i don't think y'all understand coaching. i expect GB will follow your logic. but the idea SOMETIMES is to have at least some bench players with "qualities" and not just pick people with weak but supposedly "complete games." fast, technical, etc. often the supposedly "complete" players aren't actually good enough for mexico on either side of the ball. roldan is a classic example of such mediocre mush. can't create, can't score, can't destroy. in theory, solid at all. in reality, useless because the level demands "special at something." look, when we're down 1-0 to mexico and need an equalizer i don't GAF if he is ready to defend like you want. i want some people capable of danger for a change. or maybe we can sub in roldan and lovitz instead. you can coach him to chase on defense. you cannot give roldan what he has on the ball. ask yourself why players like jonathan lewis have more tangible impact than roldan and you will start to understand what raw abilities and talent do. in a tight game a guy with one "10" of 10 (or close) is more useful than someone with a row of 5s. sometimes you need a tall guy to cross to, a fast guy to create separation or get open, someone with the technical ability to put the ball right where they mean, someone who can dribble, someone who can smash. to me the current fetish for "8s" is people who can't grasp that 2 G and 2 A hustling around a league all season and generally where you're supposed to be isn't going to make the NT any better. those used to be the first cuts because you are looking for impact and not just "he's there and where the coach wants him."