PBP: U.S. U17s vs. England, QF Round, 10/21/17, 10:30 a.m. ET

he can't get on the pitch for ATL despite them being desperate for depth(ok he got four min). wow so you think he is a lock to be a very good NT player and at a decent club at the worst at this point? at this point he is falling short I guess.

if you are comparing carleton to de bruyne...then you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. De bruyne is one of the best mids in the world right now who can play in the middle, on the wing, up front and is solid defensively. He is also much bigger and has more physical gifts. Draxler is also a big fast winger...carleton is not that. James is a big fast winger...carleton is not that. Kagawa/gotze are entirely different players then james/draxler. My point is its nice you can list a bunch of world class players but they all have different abilities and to say carleton is somehow all of those players is a joke because none of those guys are all of those guys combined lol.

 

pre-assist..is not a thing people lets stop with that. whats next...he made the play before the play that made the play that led to the goal lol.

 

My hypothesis is that you tend to overate technical players that are athletically limited. So while your evaluations of players like Wright, EPB and Miazga tend to be more right than not, your predictions on the Flores, Booth and Carleton cohort of players always seem overly optimistic.

It's no coincidence that arguably our two best field players ever, Pulisic and Donovan, had high levels of both skill and athleticism. It was obvious that both of these players were high-potential almost immediately.

Along those lines, EPB has the potential to be special because he has both. Wright could be special if he develops a better tactical understanding, uses his body better (e.g. no Kenny Cooper little man syndrome) and works a bit harder on the field. Carleton has the chance to be special if he has a late growth spurt and/or learns how to adapt to more athletic players. Booth is less talented than Carleton and badly needs further physical maturation, which hopefully he'll get given he's a year younger.

 

He's "ball watching" because Gloster is getting rock and rolled by the English winger. That's how the shot/cross comes off.

Because of Sands' positioning the angle is tough and makes for an easy save but Garces pushes it directly to Brewster who takes a striker's goal.

Sands was worried about the winger cutting back and leaving Gloster in the dirt. That would have meant the winger could either shoot or pass to Brewster or one other striker. Sands correctly sized up the situation and went with the low probability of goal cover.

Booth was all over that winger and knocked the ball loose near the touch line but Gloster wasn't alert to it and let the Englishman recover and drive towards the end line.

What's with the Sands criticism anyway? He was responsible for the first goal, Garces for the 2nd and Ferri was actually responsible (imo) for the third. Ferri really was ball watching.

Having said that , Fox Match Pass started the game (also the replay) feed at 12' mark and I only saw their replay of the first goal but it looked like Sands passed it directly to England.

 

No kidding.

Well, if I see one more tournament where the manager pulls our best dmid out and makes him a cb because he has a 16 year old who hasn't played before plus 2 CAM's to play dmid, I think I'll jump out a window before the first whistle.

 

Atlanta is desperate for depth? What are you talking about? Gressel comes off their bench, he's gonna win rookie of the year. Yeah, a team thats desperate for depth. Why not look at the coach? The guy has earned playing time, its on the coach for not giving it to him.

And you sound like you don't watch much soccer. You think Draxler and James are fast? All those players are similar in the sense that they are slower attacking midfielders, mostly play as a CAM, they rely on skill, and are all very good players. It doesn't matter whether you are 5'11 or 5'7, its all about how tall you play. Carleton can play on the wing. Has done so most of this cycle, did so every time he's played for Atlanta's first team, was doing so when he scored against India and when he assisted a goal against Colombia. He's also decent defensively. Easy to stereotype (small, not that athletic, CAM, skilled, must mean bad defender), but its been mentioned many times this cycle by many different people that he's an underrated defender.

Saying Carleton might not make it as a pro because he's not athletic shows all thats wrong with our soccer culture. He shows more skill than literally every American player at this level before him, shows more consistent good play at this level than literally every American player at this level before him, produces at these higher levels people like you said he couldn't, produces in the limited chances he got with Atlanta's first team. Other than adding another gear of speed and being the reincarnation of Messi, there's not much more he needs to do to prove himself at these lower levels. Why should we think he won't prove himself at higher levels?

 

i know exactly what im watching...but kudos to picking up on a few loose point in my previous post.

i agree that the players tried their best and all had passion to win....much more thn the full usmnt. but i mean that didnt translate in how they played....they were often cautious and slow despite passionately wanting to win. furthermore i think they wanted to win so badly that it ended up negatively effecting them when things didnt go well early on in this particualr game...the pressure got to them.

....when they are down multiple goals late in the game and take 30 seconds to throw the ball in that is a problem. and the players were receiving passes and looking around cluelessly trying to figure out what to do with the ball then ended up making poor decisions.

i think they could be better techincally...it is by no means a strength...but it is good enough to win and be effective even against a team like england who has a strong team in this tourney.

by fine..i meant good enough to win. certainly when almost all of your shots miss the goal by 20 yards or more the technical side could be better...(but i also saw the paraguay highlights and some of those goals were very technical and high-quality too)

. my opinion is that the decision making and tactical side is further behind. they got 20 shots off in the game and couldve easliy score 3 or 4 goals if a few efftorts had been better. i think england was more physical and domnated the game physically and mentally. th us plyers looked really small compared to england's.

i agree that the ignorance of the ameircan fan is holding the sport back but i dont think that applies to me lol.....i understand what im watching but i couldve written about it more accruately.

anyway....my main point is this: the stuff between the ears is what is holding these american players back...and it has been the same story for 30 years.

do you disagree with that?

 

Your hypothesis is off. I never thought Hyndman was good or Zelalem, to give a few examples. These two were two of the most hyped up players we've had recently, and I noticed right away that both were bad defensively and unable to create much offensively, I said the same thing about Ferri well before this tournament. I was probably the person arguing against all these players the most. I judge on who I think has the skill-set to succeed, and thats it. There's no discrimination against players of any type of game, despite your attempts to make it seem so. I'm not always right, but its all about a player's skill-set to succeed, not about styles of play. I have no problem with any types of players, and if you want examples of players from all styles of play that I've proven that I am a fan of, I can give that to you.

I don't know how much you've watched of Booth, but he's a fine athlete. He's a better athlete in CM than guys on this team like Ferri, Acosta, Vassilev, Carleton. He's fine size wise (5'8, and only 16), and he's a decent enough runner (you saw his run out of midfield today). He's also very combative, which players like Hyndman or Zelalem were not. People overrate athleticism from CM's. A player like Luka Modric or Toni Kroos are nothing too good athletically, but they are very smart players who are willing to put a foot in, and they position themselves well defensively because they have very high soccer IQ's. They don't get the advantage of running wildly and maybe bulldozing someone like Derrick Jones (to give an American example).

And just to your overall point about athleticism, I think people way overrate the impact of strength and athleticism, its a myth how much it impacts a game. You can count on one hand the amount of players on our NT (or any NT) that physically look strong compared to a American football player, baseball, basketball, hockey player. The "athletes" in soccer are not that strong, they don't knock lesser athletes all about as much as some make it seem. Being a willing and smart defender is usually good enough, very rarely is a guy who's a willing defender (in non-aerial battles) unable to physically keep up with guys who are considered stronger and better athletes. They would physically struggle against JJ Watt or Lebron James, not Derrick Jones. Go to your local gym and I would bet that any regular weight lifter for strength (instead of just stamina) there would physically overwhelm the majority of soccer's "athletes", and its because these guys are not as physically strong as some make them out to be. Soccer is a sport where there's not that much training for physical strength compared to other sports, its a very overrated aspect of the game.

 

Don't bother, made the account today. Just trolling.

 

The thing that gets overrated on these boards is the opposite - athleticism in 15/16 yr olds who then get ensconced on the team and never go anywhere, or end up wrecking the game for us at higher levels, because they were succeeding only because they pushed other less mature players around athletically. Compare Akinola to Weah, e.g.

I never thought Flores was any good. I had never seen Booth before and have to say he's got game. He just needs to develop physically in the right way and he will play pro. I was amazed at how well Booth played at 16 for the first time on the big stage against a big team.

As for Carleton, if you watch 50/50 balls, he wins more of them than not against players who are supposedly big time athletes. But apparently that's not athletic because he is not an athlete? Just a lucky bounce?Sometimes people get so absorbed in their own prejudices that they don't look at the actual game.

 

The only real question for Carleton would be if he would ever be able to - or even want to - run for 90' with BVB like Pulisic and company or if he is a great player at MLS level and + instead.

If Kljestan can play for Anderlecht, ffs....

 

You need athleticism and skill to be a great player in this game. You need a genius mind to be world class. Carlton is lacking physicality at his age level. He would have been buried in the U20 event. This is probably why Tab didn't call him up after his strong CONCACAF championship.

 

Im not going to knock this team and we'll see England can get by Germany. Either Germany or Brazil will challenge them.

England was good all game. They had 11 strong players while we were more like 6 or 7. Our defense was too week compared to their forwards and that ended the dream. However, I saw several players on the US team, over the last few games, that I was impressed with. Number one on my list was Carleton. I dont care what is going on in Atlanta, that kid can play. I want to like Sargent but to be honest, he had so little service it was hard to even judge his talent. I think with better players around him, he will take off.

Finally, I want to see at least some of these guys starting to get regular calls to NAT camps. Maybe they make the bench for the game or maybe they dont. We won't know until we try. They need to be integrated into the pool NOW. No more wasting slots on guys on their way out. Thats what I hope to see starting in November and will be disappointed if I see the same names that just crashed out

 

A secondary assist is definitely a thing. Generally these defense unlocking, field changing passes don't show up on the score sheet but some entities count them and some don't. You aren't the authority on what constitutes valid and invalid terminology, no offense.

 

Knowing our federation, they'll still call up everyone who failed to qualify for Russia.

I wouldn't put it past the USSF. The USSF would do precisely that if it could get away with it, which it will.

 

there is no sense in going back and forth.

draxler and james can run lol, watch them play they are also very different then carleton

ATLs first team? you mean the four minutes in the cup match? not exactly 'everytime'...

you'll see he'll fade as they get older and it will start soon. you stereotyped him and then complained about others doing it lol.

 

its called a key pass..its been in stats for a while. there is no second assist though.

 

but you have to keep in mind, they still have a huge gap in talent for qualifying that starts in two+ years.

they need to call in guys that will help them qualify because in case everyone has forgotten....they need to qualify first.

 

There is. They just count it as a regular assist.
Also, in the stats, a key pass doesn't have to lead to a goal. Just an opportunity.

 

I think the USA is bad enough right now that even qualifying for Qatar is looking unlikely.

 

When reading through prior threads the past few days,I thought you were generally right on and insightful. However this post was made with some real rose colored glasses. The game was completely one-sided and England bossed the center of the field and could beat us down the flanks at will. Only weakness on their team was their keeper - what is it with England and keepers?

Player selection and tactics where questionable. Why wasn't Dest starting and how in the world were we going to win with two guys we had playing D-md. I'm skeptical either has done a whole lot of defending in their life and neither imposing in the lease nor particularly athletic. I don't think the US kids are as bad as they looked, but England had a lot more talent 1 - 11 and it showed. The good news is that I'm confident US soccer missed a whole lot of good players.

Most of our first half shots were I'll conceived, wild strikes from 30+ yards. Best chances to score were by Sargent who had to reach for a volley that hit the cross bar and a header that flashed high because I think it just a few inches too high for him to get over. In contrast England was getting golden opportunity after golden opportunity and should have had a few more.

 

-again..the us did not lose to t&t because a lack of passion. I blame it almost completely on coaching. the players laid everything out on friday against panama...as the coach you have to see this and know that you can't put that same lineup out there on tuesday. There needed to be some rotation regardless and the fact he played the same exact 11 in the same formation shows that bruce was out of ideas. The secret is that bruce was setting the team up even if they did qualify for the wc it was going to be another ugly early exit under BA watch.

-there was never a 30 second between the ball going out and the us throwing the ball in, the over the top stuff just isn't a good look. The match was over...they were slaughtered try harder wasn't the problem.

-they could play england tougher with their best 11 but if england had sancho...lets be honest they would lose atleast 9 out of 10 times. If you look at the us best players...england was better in those positions.

what is holding the us back at the u17 level right now compared to england is between the ears...the things that go on with the feet and overall lack of number of talented players.

 

Was a big liability in this game. Didn't seem all that smart to yank twice on a kids shirt while on a yellow. You could argue he got away with it but I would argue it is pretty dumb to put yourself in that position.

However, my comments are based on this game and a few minutes he played in the prior one - hardly informed. His upside really depends on his relative physical maturity - if he's in the later range of development in a few years he'll be comparably quicker, stronger and more effective.

 

I sooooooooooooooooo much agree with this people aren't look at the roster realistically right now.

people are talking about all of the u17/u20 guys....do people really think the us is going to be able to qualify with a bunch of 21-23 year olds?

its not going to be pretty or fun but they need to start looking at some older guys like a rowe, morrow, agudelo and people in that group(listen I don't like mls but fact is a team of mls players should be good enough to qualify in concacaf) to group with the gonz/pulisic/mckenzie/brooks/miazga group to qualify.

 

thats my point though; i'd take a creative mid with a bunch of key passes instead of a guy with a 2nd assist because the guy finished a tap in.

I realize the guy with the 2nd assist was 'part' of a goal and that could be the difference between winning and losing while the key pass guys team should be shut out...I understand all of that. However, if I was looking at building a squad for the next match(the future) I'd be happier with the guy with all the key passes.