Dest is playing in Holland so I don't find it ridiculous for him to show respect to the national team there. He probably dreamed of playing on it as a kid but the US has been the one giving him chances. He hinted he would make a decision soon but if he's going to go with the US he's being tactful to wait until he actually gets asked and not insult the national team of the country where he grew up and plays professionally.
That almost sounds like we are running the offense to set up Morris which is going to be every bit as frustrating as running an offense through Zardes. Morris has 8G 6A. I am ok with him competing for a wide job but centrally we have a list of other people who would be the better focal point. I want that job going to this generation's Dempsey, a finisher, not more frustrating athletic players. And I still think over time, despite size and some heading ability, we will want Sargent facing goal rather than back to same. I think he does have some hold up ability and passing, but I think it wastes his finishing abilities. The DM can help some but cannot replace having 3 good backs in a 3 back formation. Those backs usually end up doing some combination of man marking and putting out fires all the time and the men in front of them in the formation can thwart attacks earlier but they cannot do the defensive work for them when the ball inevitably gets all the way down the field. I repeat, we looked horrific trying to do it in the recent friendlies. I used to play both the marking back and the wing back in a 352 and I know the wide spot can be fun. I also know that on a rough day it ends up basically being a 5 man backline as you mark the winger deep. Even the people touting 433 want to talk up the offensive end. In international soccer you end up playing a fair amount of defense. The selection then needs to suit that contingency. If you use a wingback who can't mark, for crossing purposes, and it's one of those days, it will be a long day. People need to quit touting stuff on best case scenarios. Concacaf is a different bird. How will it work for Mexico or CR?? Will the players you like handle their defensive jobs some day we might be pinned back? Get me a set of about 5 backs who can do their job and we can talk cute formations that shift defenders forward. Right now we can't even run out 4 good guys for a 4 man line. Re some of the specific names I think you think meet that quota, Brooks has had nightmares, I like Richards and Robinson but they haven't even been capped yet, Miazga has been hit and miss, and while I briefly liked Parker for physicality ie France that game seems almost an outlier. You need to get 4 capped guys playing well and then we can see if 3 of them are good and mobile enough to take a risk.
Let me clarify things for you. He is in our camp. He is saying these things in front of US public relations banners to the press in between US practices. We have put him on the U20 worlds team and called him in now and likely told him we will cap him next month. His response: "you will see what I do at the time." (paraphrasing.) https://sbisoccer.com/2019/09/video...e=smg&utm_medium=wasabi&utm_content=home-hero Look at the background. This is yesterday. At our training/press conferences getting ready for our friendlies. Between practices. Sorry, to me, he would be cut before the next practice. We are committed to you. You aren't sure about us. You don't get to learn our secrets and tactics while you "think about it." We should be investing in committed players. It is insulting, to me, to do this in our camp. It should not be insulting to the Dutch that he has played for the USA for years and probably would continue to do so, despite in many ways being Dutch. I understand the ones who are committed elsewhere -- and would have to switch -- or have an actual decision to make. All I ask is their commitment to us once they join us. But this is basically I get to have one foot other side of the fence while in your camp. Buzz. No.
I think you've drunk too much of that Houston water. Treating a player like this would send waves to every other kid making a difficult decision. I'm glad you aren't involved in this.
There is a difference between an uncommitted athlete with divided passions entertaining both UNC and Duke's coaches, or visiting their campuses, and one showing up for preseason UNC camp still talking like he might prefer playing for Duke.
I prefer the Klinsmann approach of get them in and it's done. I would liberally cap. On down to teenagers like Green was. That actually proved quite attractive to people, TYVM. This is different. What we are instead doing is equal parts conservatism and pushover. We are not going out there trying to commit everyone we can no matter age or readiness. Dest is unusual. Who else have we committed lately? Boyd? And we seem to be losing a few to Mexico FWIW. And in this case we are kissing up to a kid who while in camp can't commit. I am sorry but that is well past what most coaches would tolerate, and you can pretend otherwise, but it's bull. I think about every coach but GB (and you) would ship someone back out at precisely this point. You think Arena would let this happen? You think Klinsi would have him still in camp saying he's not sure? I'd swear that at least some players have been sent home when they indicated they weren't quite ready to make a one-time switch or whatever. You can say these things at home. You cannot say them in camp. In camp you are one of us. If you aren't sure you decide that before you accept our invite. And let's not pretend that means passivity or weak recruitment desire on my part. I would actively pursue them. I am simply saying once I have gone around committing a bunch of players and bringing them to camp if they are still talking about Holland they can go back there.
WTF? So in your mind, once you put on a jersey at a youth level, you’ve committed for life? What’s the commitment the other way - auto starts? You realize that FIFA explicitly doesn’t work that way, right? It explicitly allows players the right to move once to another nationality for those who actually have dual nationalities.
Earned the cap based on his play? Did you watch Ukraine? He's been in our system since 2016, as you indicate. He accepted our camp invite. Up to that point I understand your eagerness. I am willing to play along to secure his potential services. I think it's premature but actually as a general premise am fine with making targeted rush orders to secure players we want who COULD turn out, and also COULD have a second thought later. You cap them and be done with it. Then we figure out if they can help. But if this is becoming some sort of "free agency" pressure game where it's what will we give up to get a moody indecisive kid who isn't really ready, despite a string of US on his resume? Go back home and figure it out yourself. We were doing him a favor despite his being premature soccerwise. Now apparently every aspect of this is premature. In which case this is a team for committed players no different than when Howard or Donovan wanted to go off on vacation. And to make a contrast, if Efrain Alvarez came through the door and said I want to play here I would cap him tomorrow. But I then expect him to respect our efforts and not to be talking Mexico in press conferences in the build up to being cap tied. I have no opposition to capping players early and fighting for people. I am the one constantly saying experiment, try new people, cap tie anyone we might want. I have opposition to dispensing that grace on people not sure they really want it yet. He is literally in camp now. In camp now I shouldn't hear much of a second thought. How long do you think the Patriots would keep a free agent who said he'd be just as happy playing for the Jets, and if cut, plans on going right down the railroad to NY/NJ? During training camp no less.
If I were king for a day I'd change the cap rules. I get kids change their minds a lot. Ok fine. But I would make the cut at U20. You play in an international match at that level then you are cap tied. Silly to have a country train a kid through their youth programs (at no small expense) then have them go a different direction once they get to the senior team level. I get the logic and how this started but I think its outdated. Players are trained at such higher levels no compared to even five years ago that by the time they are at U20 they have had enough time make a decision. Point is with so many 18-20 year olds playing in top 5 leagues there is no reason to not have them cap tied at U20.
A high school athlete shows up at Duke, and if he's pressed to make a commitment, even verbal, and he doesn't have to ... and he shouldn't commit if he doesn't want to. All he said was "I don't know yet." That's perfectly valid.
You're talking legalities. He is in OUR CAMP RUNNING AROUND WEARING USA SENIOR TEAM gear today. Today. With the idea of playing for us tomorrow or next week. Are we really still talking decisions and how YNT doesn't cap tie, etc., at THAT POINT? This is lawyers talking. He will put on the jersey this week. He will pull a paycheck this week. We will teach him our tactics, etc. this week. This is someone in your camp in your gear with all that investment saying you could send me to U20 worlds and play me tomorrow and I might be in orange next month. At that point you can take off our shirt, go home, and come back when you've made a decision. We should not be in the business of dressing and playing players whose explicit commitment lasts less than a week. As I said re Howard and Donovan, we would treat a capped senior player not sure they wanted to be there no different.
He's not on a visit. He will play games and pull a paycheck as an American this weekend. That is more like being in spring soccer or in the regular season, and still saying I know I am here with UNC to start playing games, and have since I was a kid gone to their soccer camps, but I also like Duke and am considering transferring. If you told your coach that in the middle of spring practices in NCAA you wouldn't play another minute that spring. They'd tell you to turn in your gear and come back when you decided. He said "I don't know yet" sitting at US camp at a US soccer press conference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not at home in his barcalounger, or after his eredivisie game that week. He's here. In camp. Accepted a call-up.
I don't think you are committed for life legally or factually by YNT caps but there is a point where this reaches absurdity or immorality. He has for years been our YNT and never been theirs. He just played for us at U20 worlds. Following up on that, welcome to the USA MNT. We will cap you early just to make sure. His response? Now is when he gets questions? I could get if it had been years of no calls or he had a mixed bag of swapping or moving around in YNT. He hasn't played for anyone else and was part of the U20s in June!!!! Absurd. He is saying this in our camp having accepted the invitation and not just to watch -- to play. Absurd. I would respect this more if he had a line of Germanys or Hollands and we were asking for a switch. Julian Green. The choice would also in a way demonstrate the commitment. But this is a line of USAs and at the culminating moment, in our camp, it's like, hmmmm, now I suddenly think I might like orange. And it's not like he has Subotic's rationale of being a war refugee and then the war is over. The basic biographical facts haven't changed.
The distinction I would make is we RECRUIT people with a decision to make, but we PLAY/CAP people who have made the decision. You don't get friendly games to think about it. I would think most coaches would see it this way, for, among other reasons, information security. If we might end up playing Holland in a World Cup quarter you don't hand some ambivalent Dutch kid the playbook before he commits. Tossing him out of camp might be extreme but he would be removed from the playing roster, replaced, and at minimum sent to the sidelines and perhaps excluded from tactical/scrimmage sessions. You get the game reward for making the right decision. I understand there is some debate on whether A team friendlies commit players. In theory he could say he was committed and then legally swap. But that would be a liar talking and we wouldn't know til it happened. But the commitment I want is that he acts like here is where he wants to be and like next month is a formality. There no longer is that illusion. Later kid.
But it's a call up that everyone knows is not a commitment. In fact, there's a really good chance he accepted it specifically as a trial on both ends. I'm not sure what being a fake tough guy on issues like this actually accomplish. Yes, it's great when someone is gung ho for the US, but I don't know why it is expected. It's kind of a ridiculous question to ask someone while in camp anyway.
Why? Coaches try out players all the time. Why can't a player try out a team? I think by defintion, we've seen that a decent number don't. Calling in a player for a friendly seems to be a decent way for both sides to see if there is a fit. Aren't you the guy who sys we should do everything to improve even the slightest part of the roster? How does acting like this improve the roster? How do you think his U20 teammates react to such an abrasive move? If this wasn't about a player you so obviously dislike, would you advocate that we do this? Or, you know, both her and Berhalter came in knowing exactly the situation and both are good with it.
Yeah, why on earth would we want to tie down a teenager playing a historicaly horrible position for us on one of the top teams in the world? I guess everyone has their critics, but to act like he's not clearly one of the top prospects in the pipeline at the moment is absurd, even if he is truly human and has had a game here and there where he wasn't his best.
I'm not being a "fake tough guy." He is already getting to jump queue based on dual nationality, I don't buy he's here on merit. And then he craps on that by saying he's not even sure and may indulge the legal loopholes? Screw him. At that point he goes back in the pool with the other players who are either on the fence or trying to establish performance bona fides -- neither box of which he yet ticks. What you're missing is we need quality, committed wingbacks, and this will burn 2 more chances to look at options. In a year the games will start counting and we shouldn't be burning what few experiments we have on players who are both not ready and uncommitted. Beyond that, no coach anywhere is going to let you consume minutes in spring soccer or preseason if you refuse to commit to the regular season. Do you think we played seniors, people headed out for study abroad, transfer-outs, in spring soccer? You don't burn time on players who aren't going to be there next time. These games exist for more serious purposes than giving Dest a chance to kick the tires. He can legally play games but professionally I would bet 99% of international coaches would not give a cap to a player who acted like they might choose the other team. Don't waste my time. They might give a cap to someone who prior to the call up expresses ambivalence, but then keeps their mouth shut and shows up. But that would be a different expression, a different implicit commitment. Once you give me reason to doubt you will be here in October, sorry, part of this is preparing for October and next year, and this camp is for people on board that mission.
That's not what I said at all. On that issue I said the exact opposite. We should be out capping -- even early -- interested players who could go a different way. In bulk. Like Klinsi did. I have zero opposition to that. I am a proponent. I say experiment. I say take risks on early caps. My issue here would be on the word "interested." That indulgence should be for players who WANT to be on our team. Otherwise you are basically trying to jump queue through pressure when you don't really care. Otherwise Dest is a work in progress who doesn't know which team he wants. That should not get you special dispensation. You get the special dispensation for MAKING THE DECISION. Boyd, AJ, the Germans? They MADE THE DECISION. Welcome, come on in. It's a circular argument to suggest that waiting on the decision would result in us losing decisions. The issue if any would come before that stage. FWIW Up until he ran his mouth, I would have thought he had no decision to make. Belongs here. But he's officially not sure he wants the bait, so I say throw him back in the water til he decides. He is not one of the top prospects in the U20s, to me. I have listed 5 before that I think are locks to be good senior players (Richards, Mendez, Pomykal, Soto, Weah). I put him in the second tier that may or may not be a good senior player. That Ukraine goal he gave up was schoolboy stuff.
Personally, I would treat him exactly like any of our other players. If he hasn't given us any reason to believe he isn't committed to the US (to my knowledge he hasn't). I think we should treat him as if he is committed. We don't ask any of our non dual national teamers that have accepted all of our callups to sign or voice any specific pledge of allegiance that I know of. I wouldn't expect one from him either. If Berhalter believes he is ready to play (I think he seems to be), he should play. If Berhalter believes he is not ready to play, he shouldn't. It should be a coaching decision based upon where he is right now. He is in a far different situation than Nagbe who has now declined several callups. If I were the coach I would definitely expect a reasonable explanation and demonstration of commitment before calling Nagbe. Dest....treat him the same and show him that he will be treated the same as all of the other players. No favoritism and no discrimination. If we lose a player of two or three because they weren't given favorable treatment, than so be it!
I don't "dislike" him. I don't think he is ready. There is a yawning gap between those two. Please. I am pro-experiment to help the US but that would be emphasis on "help the US." If you aren't sure about that last part you are hitting and falling over the first hurdle. So the emphasis -- duh -- should be on scouting AMERICANS. If he is "Dutch" he could be Pele and he would be of no use to us. This is all about explicit negation of commitment. Otherwise I was saying before this that whether I think he is ready, take the risk on him. Take it on Soto, etc. This is not a contradiction. Just don't play games with that. If your decision will come in October and you are noncommital we have 100s of committed players to consider for this opportunity, and need to prepare for the fall and next year. You go down the list til the next committed option. I think many of his U20 teammates would be WTF at their teammate suddenly deciding he needs to think about his soccer nationality. As I explained, it's not like he's gone back and forth. It's not like his life situation changed. He always lived and played there. He always played for us. I think some of the issue here is a linkage between the legalities of arguing he wouldn't be committed now, and the mentality of acting like these games don't matter much. I don't think we should play to win so much but that is not treating these games frivolously either. I think that with this being the only NT games we get, we shouldn't just throw them away I think a specific thing that makes me cranky is the suggestion that no matter how this goes he has some vague and nebulous decision to make. It's not, I need to make sure my heart sings for the anthem. Or that I fit in with the coach and players. It's all very coy, no reasoning, just, I have a U23 Dutch offer on the table and when this is over I will get back to you. That low level of commitment and absence of standards/deliverables should end this trial.
“(The Dutch Federation) said something to me, it was not the first team yet, it was with the Under-23s. They want to have a meeting with me. I keep the options open.” “I’m happy for this opportunity, and I’m happy that I’m here right now,” Dest said. “I don’t know for the future yet. You guys will see what happens in that time.” “I don’t know yet. I can’t make that decision yet,” Dest said. “I was a little bit surprised, and I felt like, how you say, valued,” Dest said. “I like to play for the U.S. so I love that opportunity. “It’s a big opportunity, and I’m also proud to play for them,” Dest said. “For me, they give me a lot of chances when I was younger so I appreciate that.” not sure where you're coming from, at all, saying we have no reason to doubt his commitment. he is saying this sitting at a table at a USSF press conference in between USMNT practices, preparing to play for the US. after all we have done for him plus an accepted call the answer is you will see what happens.
in terms of no special treatment, i reference how Landon and Howard were treated when they went on international hiatus. contrary to the arguments being made, history is that players with such ambivalence were given an obstacle course to get back, and Landon then got left off the World Cup roster. more pointedly, i don't think he had earned a senior cap yet, even he seems bemused and flattered, we all know this was being done early to mutually commit him, regardless of readiness. the epitome of special treatment right there. to then say, not sure really, whamo, yank special treatment. you're saying no special treatment, he wouldn't be here then. not on merit. not on loyalty. he was being done a favor. he has essentially said, not sure i want your favor at the commitment level. pull the rug.
I pretty much agree with everything which makes it puzzling why you would see my plan as making Morris the focal point. At the bottom of your bucket of ideas is a note which reads "the USA does not have any player who scores 30+ in EPL one season all comps, Yours,truly, Excellency". b.t.w., I was the only person around here who suggested early on that Sargent was a Dempsey, not a Jozy. Jozy + Dempsey + Donovan = Jozy(for now) + Sargent + Pulisic