Fiorentina is out of the running for Europe and relegation, so they'd be remiss not to give Perez an opportunity too these next few games.
I've been disappointed not to see Josh get more first team opportunities this season. Seems he fell off a bit after a hot start. Hope he gets another chance soon.
Last Primavera matchday is 13 May. The Viola are firmly in second place and will, thus, be in the playoffs. I would hate if Perez was not released for the WC based on this. Were he to get some first team minutes, I would be slightly mollified.
As much as I want to Josh on the field...I am not sure where he is good enough to get minutes. Fiorentina haven't had an awful season by any means.
I don't think he is good enough to shine with his current form but he could sure play and not embarrass himself. He compared very favorably to the kids currently getting bench time and, at least I, thought he was as good as Chiesa when they were both on the pitch. We are talking end of season with nothing to gain or lose. My preference, of course, is that he be at the WC.
It's Italy. He'd have to be extraordinary to get a shot. There are some places where an American player gets more rope (Germany, England, Scandinavia, France, and above all the Netherlands) and places where it's basically a suicide mission (Italy, Portugal, and the hardest of all, Spain). Josh is not in an ideal situation, IMO. It's good enough that he gets chances with the Primavera team, but after turning 20 he better gets loaned to some place where they actually give him play time.
well for those of us who are not in the know, why is Italy or Spain like that? Do teams not trust US players in those leagues?
They have this emphasis on ball control, dribbling, one-touch combos, etc. Exactly the skills reputedly the American system fails to teach. So, rightly or not, managers, players & fans don't rate American soccer at all. From time to time we get an interview in English to guys like Pirlo or Conte or Mourinho (who toned it down because of his contractual links to American companies) where they say basically that we suck. It's very tough to crack those markets. It wasn't a small feat what Bradley did, even if he wasn't exactly loved by the fans in Roma.
Is there some greater Anglo vs Latin world clash context that I am missing here or is it really ONLY about the technical skills of the players?
They seemed to like Michael Bradley well enough. His touch is a little sketchy. I think Italy, especially, is very tactical. Maybe our players naïveté tactically is a turnoff.
Every club and manager is different. I don't think they are overly biased against Americans anywhere except England - and that is mostly due to fan bias. Sousa seems to have had a policy of rotating the best Primavera players up to the first team bench. This is easier in Serie A because their banca e lunga (a dozen subs). Apart from Chiesa (son of Italy legend Enrico), who is now a semi-regular starter, Josh still has the second highest amount of minutes among the Primavera revolving players.
Still would rather see him on the U-20 team. I think he's not so essential to Fiorentina that they cannot let him go. Whether Tab picks him . . . . that's another question.
I don't buy this idea of bias against American players. There are always going to be individuals who let their ignorant ideas about the US color their personal interactions with American players but that's a very very small majority. They want competent soccer players. Where they come from is of little importance. What's more to the point, however, is the view, correct or not, that young American soccer players arrive abroad without the lifestyle skills to succeed in a foreign environment. There's a heavy cultural element that goes into being able to assimilate to a new soccer reality AND a new social reality. FWIW, the track record of Americans being able to manage that isn't glorious. Being an exceptional soccer player is only one aspect of the larger picture.
I wonder the same. It seems overly stereotypical I'd think. the Differences between England/Germany and Italy/Spain in regard to their leagues. Then again from our pool of evidence (English/US players tend not to do as well in the latter as they might in the former)
Is it simply then that La Liga or Serie A clubs don't typically go for US players? Do they just stick to what they know and go for Brazilians/Argentines players. Our guys tend to usually be decent quality for cheap. Though maybe the relegation fodder clubs in these leagues can not outbid the relegation fodder clubs in England for our boys.
Generally, I agree that teams just want competent players and don't care where they come from, but there are American players (and successful ones at that) that have lived it and said they've felt they had to do more to prove themselves. Look at Dempsey - every time he got a new coach at Fulham he was back on the bench. Until Americans prove themselves in certain leagues I believe there will be some small level of bias against them.
I think it absolutely exists. Just read practically any article about a good performance by a previously unkown American in Italy, Spain, Germany, etc.. and you will likely see the phrase "although not known for good football..." I know that doesn't mean a team won't play a good American, but the impression is there, at least subconsciously. I think this, in turn, results in Yanks not getting as much of the benefit of the doubt if they have a streak of mediocre form. Natives from the particular country and especially South Americans will get a lot more leash. Again, I think this level of bias is fairly universal in Europe but much worse in England. Just my observations and opinion having lived and worked in many of these places.
There's a big difference between what the strongly "anti" American press prints and what football people say on the sidelines. The Euro sporting press loves to knock Americans, no question..
Yes, it's naïve not to acknowledge it, kowtowing to Eurosnoberry for a vicarious feeling of it themselves, or trying to act like the voice of reason by having a nihilistic stance. Universally, there are cultures of certain behavior, that are geographical. Obviously it doesn't apply to everybody within the culture. But it doesn't need to or even most for it to be pertinent. Religion is a prime example of this. Racism is another. Look at an example where this intersected for race, football, an American, and in Italy at Cagliari. Picault reported to receive a ton of racial abuse from fellow teammates at the club which didn't create an environment conducive to his success. Now Sully Muntari has experienced this at Cagliari himself as a visiting player. I think many have an easier time acknowledging this reality being an impediment to success because of the p.c. climate. The American people are thought to be privileged, but if anything the opposite is true in football, and that's what we're talking about here. Football and politics are conflated far too much disingenuously. Many players from the U.S. who try to ply their trade in Europe purport to receiving prejudice from players, fans, coaches, and media. What about our first coach in the EPL who even his fellow coaches derisively dubbed Ronald Reagan at the club in Wales/the UK. They undermined him. Even Giuseppe Rossi, who ultimately moved to Italy at the start of adolescence, they defined him as the American kid (which has a stigma), according to him. He quickly made it clear he'd be playing for the Italian national team, so that perception faded as he was trying to prove himself. I know a lot of Europeans were shocked to learn he grew up in the States. Is this a coincidence that he's arguably had the best career overseas for a player who grew up in the States? I doubt Adebayor got skepticism/antagonism from those in Europe because he grew up in Togo, and Aubameyang in Gabon. Maybe they got some significant aforementioned racism, actually they probably did, but no disbelief in their abilities to succeed in football. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for most because negativity isn't the best environment to develop in. Some develop a chip on their shoulders and that benefits them, but it's less reliable than a positive environment, and prevents them from reaching their peaks. I think this is why ultimately when playing with the national team the U.S. has punched above their weight (outside of '15-'16), due to the shared experience. People can say until they're blue in the face that teams just want players that help them win, and maybe that's true when players are ultimately proven and consistent through it all, but they are made up of flawed individuals with their own biases and baggage to make that considerably less likely along the way. Before it was proven, they received more pressure when they had a bad performance or two, and prior to that were met with some negativity that they weren't good enough to compete sight unseen. Deep down, if it's them or the alternative, many don't want to see the American succeed because our politics, success in international sport, having our own domestic ones which are more popular than football, and the country as a whole still not fully respecting the sport. "You can't feel the football" - Uruguayan nt douche coach trying to excuse failure after his team struggled in Copa America.
And actually, it is true for the most part. I wonder what would happen if the US won the world cup. I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be much partying in the streets outside a few areas of the country.
By "a few areas" do you mean every major city? Because Chicago was wild for the 2014 World Cup, and we weren't even good.