A key factor why Pizarro got his contract extended for another season is that the Bundesliga changed the game day roster limitation: teams can now name 20 players for game day rosters instead of 18. that’s also good news for Josh Sargent.
yeah he has that rep, but it is pretty unfair. I am not saying he was amazing for Peru, but people expected miracles from him, that he was never capable of performing.
People seem to be forgetting Sargent cooled his heels for nearly a year waiting to turn 18 so he could sign with Werder. Then after turning 18 couldn't play for any Werder team last spring because it was too late to register with the league. Top it off with a very limited roll in his first full season with the club and he has had a very limited amount of structured match time during a critical two years of his development. Hopefully, this lack of competitive matches will not delay his development but I would not say he had a "pretty good first year." Acceptable would be where I would rate it given his status as a highly rated youth international and later a goal scoring full international. At best the past season was a speed bump in his career. At worst the path he has chosen will delay his development. Time will tell.
I really would love for someone to crunch a ton of numbers on players careers to see if regular, top-level (say Big 5 and top of other leagues) competitive games before, say, 20, seem to make a difference in long-term career prospects, versus starting in lower level competitive games versus being on "top team's" U sides or a sometime-bench warmer. In some ways it seems like it should, but thinking about totality of players, I'm not sure how much of a pattern you would find. The "practicing with the best" versus "playing with the lesser" debate. Wonder if you could tease anything out of the numbers.
At the very top level it does. For any standard professional not as much. There are obvious exceptions (hello Jamie Vardy) to this, of course.
Do you know of anyone who has done actual numbers analysis? (legit asking.) I've not found anyone whose looked at something like that using a large sample.
Unfortunately not but I’d love to see the data if someone wants to spend the time. Basically you’d need put together a rough consensus of the top 20 or so players in the world every year for the last 10-15 seasons, roll them together on one master list, and then detail out what type of pro activity they had 20 and under.
After waiting to sign, then signing, he played and was having good success with the youth sides. That earned him some bench time with the first team and ultimately some games. He scored. He made the bench most of the time. I think that is pretty good for a kid making a move to a good club that was trying to right the ship, at that time. Signing is no guarantee that you will play, only that you will get paid, a locker and a jersey. He's 18. I think he will be ok.
I think being back with US will energize him. He could get some good confidence back to take to camp with Bremen.
I think you'd need to cast wider net than 20, but something like that would be interesting. I'd say do all the 75%+ starters in the "big 5" + a smattering of "top clubs" like Ajax/PSV, Sporting, Celtic, etc. by birth year, then break out their pro-situation from 17-20. Or just go by player value. Dunno how accurate Transfermrkt is but you could just take the top 400 or so players by value, break them out by birth year... I'll get right on it... Maybe after I finish my taxes... if I get them done by October... 2020...
Only challenge with player value is that it fluctuates based on things like position, length of contract remaining, age, estimated potential, marketing value, etc.). I am not sure valuation actually equates performance, as much as estimated potential. Always hard to get a consensus top players, but I figure a top 100 would suffice.
I dunno, guys like Strootman, Ballotelli, Dost, Tadic, Benteke, Hulk, Lamela come in on the transfermkt between 400 and 450. (and I'm not arguing for that metric, it's just one that easy to search - and even break down by birth year.) Obviously, many of those are not at the apex of their career value, and I dunno what level would be a consensus "successful career" for Sarge (and CP has probably warped that window beyond reason for the short term) but it does suggest the question; What level would be a "successful career" for him given current expectations.
Called up for US Soccer Summer Camp https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/20...ng-camp-roster-gold-cup-preparation-annapolis
it would be be easier that way, although it has Messi as the 3rd most valuable player in the world and Ronaldo at 16 with Dembele in the top 10. I don't think that Dembele is better than Ronaldo as far as actual production. His age inflates that. It might be interesting to do market value for those 25 and older.
There's lots of ways to try to skin that cat. But at the end of the day, what are the upper and lower expectations/acceptable outcomes for Sarge? What do folks here think his ceiling is? Do he or Weah end up with the better career (who else is in that race?)
How about just take all world cup rostered players - that's really what I care about -and see how many of them had first team football by 20 and how many didn't? top 100-400 seems overly narrow....you don't have to have a high valuation to perform at a high level....there's +400 players in the bundesliga alone.....that's plenty high enough to be a great performer at a world cup...... I'd bet there would be a correlation......the younger the player gets consistent first team minutes...the better career they end up having....
Hmm, hard to say. I see Sargent as a McBride+... I think if he develops at a regular pace, he will be similar to McBride but with a stronger track record (and more acceptance from YA posters) due to expanded time in Europe and fewer injuries. If he develops at an accelerated pace he can maybe be like Robert Lewandowski. On Weah, I am not sure yet... I still find it hard to get a true feel of him. I see a good bit of individual talent, but still waiting for him to find his role within the team concept.
To clarify my earlier comment stating "at the very top level it does"....by this I didn't really mean games played 20 and under for any top 5 league starter. I meant for the best players in the world over an extended period. My point was that for players not meaningfully breaking through at 20 and under it's exceedingly rare for them to become a top player in the world.
But I'd make the distinction between "first team minutes" and "top level first team minutes." Because what I'm interested in trying to parse (and it's probably Quixotic, but I'm avoiding a crushing deadline, so it's very important...) is whether "training at a top level" but not playing a ton (like Sarge or Weah) is generally better/worse/no different from "playing regularly at lower level." I'd say it probably axiomatic that "starting/playing regularly at a top level" has a high outcome of guys eventually "still starting/playing regularly at a top level." The question is whether a prospect like Sarge was better off holding out for Bremen despite 2 years of relatively little first-team competitive play, or if young players are *generally* better off like, say, Nova (although TBF he's older - there's probably a better comp), who dropped to a level where you get steady minutes.
Got it. Thing I'd like to figure out is if there seems to be any pattern of different outcome for those players who are getting 20+ starts a season at a lower league/level and those training but getting <15 apps or so for "top" teams/league. I really have no idea what a wide survey would suggest. Probably fairly inconclusive, but you hear both arguments made: "Needs to be in a better league" as well as "needs to be playing regularly" but for most 18-20 both at the same time is not an option. Will Sarge/Weah's trying to punch above their weight work out better or worse than those getting 90 a week in a lesser league at the same age?
Yup would say what we both want to see would be valuable...how soon do you know if a guy's elite level upside is limited AND lower level PT vs higher level youth/reserves).
Actually, he's 19. I too think he will be ok but his decision to big time MLS and wait it out for Europe resulted in seriously delaying his development. He has very little to show from his 17-18 years at club level. Compare that to Busio and Davies who trained and played regularly against men in first division matches as 16 year olds. Sargent made his choice. Good luck to him.