I'm just staying with my viewpoint that's he's depth for us, beyond that, not worth mentioning. Watch him play and it's blah. The problem is in finding someone to replace that role in central midfield. We are still struggling to develop someone who is a genuine attacking threat from the central midfield. Virtually all of our talent in the central midfield is more 8 oriented with perhaps a guy or two who might be a 6 coming up, maybe. But something analogous to a #10? We don't have anyone right now in their prime or about to hit it that are even close to handling something analogous to that role other than maybe Pulisic, and of course it isn't his best position, but it probably would have the greatest impact on our play for now to put him there till one of the real young kids pushes their way into the role allowing Pulisic to play his more natural position. It's frustrating, but I kinda get why Green is still hovering around the program. Unfortunately just about everything that could replace what he offers when he's playing well is still a year or two away. So he's gonna be a frustrating satellite depth piece having an outsized role for his seemingly very limited ceiling in terms of talent.
It's time to give others a chance. Isn't that the standard line when some MLS-type is not producing? Sabbi is a guy who can play the second striker/in the hole role. Why not give him a run instead of Green?
No one claimed Green should be a lock starter. I simply addressed his production with the National Team, which I suggested merited more opportunities. Try again.
And I noted that production is in the past at this point, and he looks as trending down. The person noting everybody under Sarachan deserves another look is correct though. Thing is, we're going to run out of time.
His production is in the past like everyone else's. Close to everyone's production trended down this year.
I've been thinking about this lineup on the field for our first World Cup group game in 2022: ----------------Sargent------------ Weah--------Mendez--------Pulisic -----McKennie---------Adams---- Bello-----EPB-------Miazga------Dest -----------------Steffan-------------- Bench: Horvath, Klinsman, Robinson, Yedlin, Long, Richards, Reyna, De La Fuente, Durkin, Ledezma, Soto, Llanez
I like the optimism about the kids, but I feel like there still are going to be more guys in the late-20s to early-30s range on the roster. It'd be nice if enough of these kids became legit, high-level players to push guys like Wood, Arriola, Villafana, etc. off the roster, but it's probably unlikely.
I know this is entirely speculative, but John Brooks will only be 29 in 2022. Seems a little young to kick him totally off the roster.
Pulisic, Adams, McKennie, Miazga, EPB, will all be in their prime at 24-27. Sargent, Weah, Dest, Mendez will be 22-23. These are the age ranges you want at the World Cup. There might be some older guys that hang on, I doubt Wood, Arriola, Villafana will be the ones. Yedlin, Brooks, Acosta, Hamid would be better bets imo. I think at some point you use 2022 for 2026. If someone is going to be 29-30 in 2022, they won't be around for 2026. Might make more sense to bring a 20 year old and give them the experience.
Probably, but if we are not speculating what are we doing? Haha. I just think you bring Richards (or some other CB that pops up) and give them the taste for 2026. Like how Brooks went in 2014.
Couldn't disagree more. At the World Cup, you should always bring the guys who you think are most likely to help you win at that tournament. If the 20 year old can help more than the 29 year old, sure. But you don't kick off the 29 year old just because he might not help 4 years later. That's asinine.
In a vacuum sure. But to make a roster in 2022 that assumes you can win is asinine probably. Why let a 2% chance at best dictate your roster? Plus, the World Cup in 2026 will be in the United States. We have a far better chance to win in 2026 than probably 2022 or even 2030. No, you don't drop a starter for an up and comer. We are talking 4th centerback or other fringe people on the roster.
When I say best chance to win, I mean chance to win games. Of course winning the whole tournament is a long shot. I don't see how bringing a youngster with the intention of him sitting on the bench in 2022 helps us win in 2026. If you bring a youngster, it is because you think he can play and help you win. All of our CBs in 2014 played in the tournament. Including a young John Brooks, who was picked ahead of the far more experienced Clarence Goodson. And Brooks ended up subbing in for an injured Matt Besler and scoring the game winning goal against Ghana. Anyway, my point is not that you shouldn't bring youngsters. But it should be on merit. I would love it if all the kids play well enough that they surpass all our vets. But it just seems weird to leave off the one prime age, top 4 league starter with World Cup experience in favor of players all currently sitting on benches.
The ultimate objective of our (or any) national team is to perform as best as it possibly can at The World Cup. There’s a tournament ONCE every FOUR years. Why on earth would you jeopardize that just because you find it highly unlikely you’d win the championship? What would our chances in 2026 be anyway? 10% if 3/4 of our kids pan out to 90% of their ceilings? This is crazy. Who the heck sees the World Cup as a player development opportunity?
What you call crazy is pretty standard practice around the world. Most teams bring 1-2 young players. Looking at World Cups in a vacuum again seems like a mistake to me. The 2026 WC is in the United States. 2026 will undoubtedly be our best chance to win the tournament since 1930. To not see that and think you wouldn't keep an eye towards that is crazy. Whatever, we can pick this up when we qualify for 2022.