The USMNT could have a World Cup roster with no players over 30, how often does that happen?

[QUOTE="xbhaskarx, post: 40513521, member: 164528"
Brooks 29
[/QUOTE]

You can take out Brooks from the list. We all know he's not going to Qatar, despite the fake claim of "he still has a chance".

 

My oldest son is a 1993 and played two years in the DA Program (Marc Pelosi was a team mate). During the two years, I had the opportunity to attend the yearly tournaments when they would bring in some (all?) of the teams. What was really interesting and what should have been a warning was the sameness of the teams and how little to no players stood out. In my my mind, they were developing a lot of players to play college, but not developing professional players or USMNT quality.

 

Makes me suspicious there is still something to my argument that the '90-'95 developmental debacle was at least as much about scouting failures as it was about anything else, I think we all remember when Gill was basically the key piece of youth teams and considered one of our best prospects a decade ago from his age cohort. I can't shake the sense that we just missed identifying an absolute ton of talent from those birth years. It's impossible for me to believe that we simply didn't produce much of any. I'm also familiar with the idea that during that time period, we prioritized technical skill, and deemphasized athleticism w/prospects, so maybe that was part of it? No idea what the true reason behind the disaster was, but I definitely think there was a HUGE scouting and development failure, and it wasn't simply off years.

 

As you say, Long will probably make the roster, so it probably won't happen this year but it could very easily be the case that our 2026 team doesn't feature anyone 30 or over. Not only are most of the players under 30, most are 25 or under. Pretty amazing to think that it is even a realistic possibility to occur this year and even more amazing that it is a realistic possibility that it could occur in two CONSECUTIVE cycles.

 

Regardless of what the issue is - developmental or scouting or just a dud group -- what that time period really highlights is the inherent weakness of the centralized structure here.

So much relied on Bradenton. Yes, there were a few MLS academies starting on '07, but they weren't very good at it yet, and just started. Yes, there were the old pay to play, but they were never very good at it, and many of the lessons and directives really hadn't filtered down yet.

At the end of the day, when you hitch your wagon to only about 30 kids, you are going to have a good chance of a run where you just miss.

 

The US player pool in the 1979-1983 period may have been the peak of the pre-2018 era, but the 1984-1987 group is still solid IMO. I believe all of these players played at least 1 major tournament for the US and/or played a key role in qualifying.

1984: Guzan, E. Johnson, Parkhurst, Bornstein, Pearce, Marshall
1985: Holden, Feilhaber, Cameron, Kljestan, Evans
1986: Zusi, Edu, Davies, Spector, Orozco, Castillo
1987: Bradley, Besler, F. Johnson, Bedoya, Ream, Torres, Rogers, McCarty

The weakness with this group is that the one true "star" who was able to sustain a long-term impact with the US was Bradley with 151 caps. I think Alejandro Bedoya is actually in 2nd place here, and he only had 66 caps. Only EJ, Bradley, and Spector truly broke through as teenagers. Holden, of course, was on the verge of being that 2nd star, and Davies was destroyed by a bad decision.

I'll also note Zusi, as I believe he and Tab Ramos are the only 2 US players that have multiple assists at the World Cup.

1988-1989 is definitely a weaker group, but I usually classify them with the 1984-1987 group since Altidore and Adu so commonly played with this older age group. Other notable players were Gonzalez, D. Williams, and Villafana.

 

I agree that GK is the most likely position to break 30.
The wc is usually in June, right? Unless I am counting wrong, anyone born after June 1996 should still be under 30 in June 2026...right? that means everyone to the right of the brown box will be under 30 and Shaq moore will be as well. Personally, I think the most likely to make it from the green would be Turner, Zimmerman, Steffan and possibly Acosta. I doubt both Turner and Steffan make it and I hope we have better alternatives to both in 2026. I suppose that I could see Zimmerman coming as a leadership option but I believe we have enough young leaders (who will be veteran leaders in 2026) that he won't be needed.

My expectation is that a few of the players in black/red/brown will not make the team in 2026...to be replaced by players that are currently 17-24ish but the that they will be the core of the team. (I guess that isn't too difficult of a prediction...that the core will come from the black/red/brown)

 

I feel like Zimmerman will definitely be out by 2026 and the tournament he has a chance to make in a leadership role will be the Olympics.

I feel like there’s a good chance Steffen and Turner will be around as they will both still be in the right age range for a goalie. The hope of course will be that Slonina can make the leap.

Acosta will still be around age wise and we’ll definitely see him next cycle, but hopefully b6 2026 we’ll have found an alternative as a backup 6.

 

For the 84-94 group, there were a lot of factors.

1) Significant injuries
2) Bad club situations in Europe / Going to Europe too soon
3) Personal issues

There was also the weird period where the US really went after dual nationals on Liga MX teams rather than continue to use college kids.

 

Prospects don't make it. In that era we didn't have a particularly big pool. If a couple of the higher end prospects don't make, its really noticeable. Much more noticeable for us than nations with bigger pools like Argentina.

We have plenty of prospects that don't "make it" now. Sebastian Soto, Uly Llanez, Chris Gloster, the list is endless. Andrew Carleton. We just have a deeper pool now.

Saying all of that...................people know there are a bunch of those 90-95 players that will make our WC team. Or at least have a shot at making the WC team.

That's the era of the 2016 U23 Olympic team (who were mostly 93-95s). A punching bag team.
That group had Zack Steffen, Ethan Horvath, Cameron Carter-Vickers, Matt Miazga, Jordan Morris, etc. etc.
If I remember correctly, Yedlin wasn't released. Brooks hadn't committed.

Will Packwood, Gedion Zelalem, Dillon Serna, and Marc Pelosi from that team all had career altering injuries.
Emerson Hyndman was on a good track in Atlanta, and putting himself back into the USMNT frame, until his knee injury.

 

I think the US is in a unique position in the world. We now have a lot of MLS clubs who see the value in developing young players either for their own club, or to sell to Europe. And we have a lot of young players with European citizenship, or the capabilty to get it, so they can easily sign with a European team.
We've always had a ton of kids playing, we now finally have a lot of really good professional development programs running around the country.

 

I was in a coaching seminar with an older dude who was involved with Florida youth soccer for decades. He specifically pointed out how Zusi ('86) was not a top tier talent in Florida. Most of the guys who were better dropped out of soccer after high school. Pro-soccer just did not seem like a good job back in the early 2000's.

 

I've been looking in to the lost generation for well over a decade. I remember pointing out the issue and a lot of people on this board thought I was crazy. Here are the major factors in the late 1990's and early 2000s that I believed contributed and the steps that were taken to reverse the trend.

1) Win first development. Youth and college soccer had become more organized but in a bad way. The biggest teams would poach the best players but would focus on physical tactics instead of technique. Also, safety over risk taking. Players in this era actually dropped in quality of imagination and technique versus the preceding "golden generation". Most of all , though, is that kids just weren't having fun. This is the one factor were things got worse in the early 2000s versus the early 90's.

2) Lack of a youth to pro pipeline in the early 2000s. MLS had just contracted, rookie salaries were barely living wages and even then rosters were limited so even those crappy salaries were few. They did have Generation Adidas and Bradenton but that notably had a limited impact. While technically this also was an issue in the 90's there was a key difference in that there were a lot more prime age American players competing for minutes.

3) Lack of quality and quantity of scouting. Liga MX had more and better scouts than MLS or USMNT in our own country. This was always a historical issue for us but with quality being harder to find our issues became more apparent.

4) No national style. Again, a historical issue. Players were developed according to their local teams requirement. Bradenton was the answer to this issue for a while but it also created a culture of entitlement since players had little competition once chosen.

5) Pay to play. A historical issue yet to be fully fixed. However, because of factor #2 this caused many families of the era to not want to invest in soccer at all.

6) Lack of soccer families and culture. Most youth soccer participants before the mid 2000s were the first in their family to play soccer. This also affected the quality of coaching and club directory. This was always a factor that was going to be fixed once the first generation of soccer participants had children but I list it as a contributing factor for the 2000s that has since changed drastically. In addition, the advent of YouTube and internet made soccer drills and information available to all.

In 2004 the first reaction to the above problems were to go all in with the Bradenton players. This was the right intention but the issue was the current infrastructure. By 2006 it was apparent that the Adu generation was not panning out.

In 2007, MLS and the USSF focused on attacking the first four points. MLS created the HGP while the USSF abolished Bradenton and created the DA. The DA ensured that youth development from U-10 to U18 focused and marketed themselves as preparing for the YNTs. This created a quick reversal of factor 1 and slower reversal of 4. MLS/USL expansion and HGP initiative created a comparatively huge demand for young American players which took care of factors 2 and 3. Factor 6 also diminished as expected. Factor #5 is still an issue but there has been some movement forward with MLS clubs providing free development to the very top tier of players.

 

One thing to consider is how important the creme de la creme are to the success of the national team. Here is my list by birth year of "impactful" players who had fairly long careers. I leave out a few guys (such as JOB and Mathis) who were very talented by whose careers were curtailed by injury.

Anyhow my list of impactful players by birthyear (I'm leaving out goalies):

Claudio Reyna 1973
Pope 1973
Jermaine Jones 1981
Donovan 82
Onyewu 82
Beasley 83
Dempsey 83
Bradley 87
Altidore 89

Then the new gen guys (and here we have to speculate some cuz they are so young)

Pulisic 98
McKennie 98
Adams 99
Dest 2000
Gio Reyna 2002
Musah 2002

Observations:

1) We actually had two long "droughts" when it comes to impactful national team players. Between Reyna/Pope and the Jones/Donovan/Onyewu/Beasley/Dempsey cluster. And between Altidore and Pulisic/McKennie/Adams.

2) We've also had two unusually talented clusters or cohorts. Jones/Donovan/Onyewu/Beasley/Dempsey and Pulisic/McKennie/Adams/Dest/Reyna/Musah.

3) It remains to be seen if what comes after the second cluster is superior to what came after the first. To me this is THE question. There are reasons for believing we will have a better followon group. But it remains to be seen.

 

I could probably argue a number of points on who is impactful, but that's kind of pointless.

Instead, I will highlight two of your assumptions/choices that highlight a couple of things that I think are very relevant:

1. (I'm leaving out goalies) - A huge percentage of the US' strong performance and relative success over the years have come from the most important position on the field: keeper. It's not just that Tim Howard (1979) should be on your list, it's that Tim Howard's value to the US was probably equivalent to about three people and while it doesn't affect your gaps ... the longevity of keepers means it covered some issues.
   
2. I leave out a few guys (such as JOB and Mathis) who were very talented by whose careers were curtailed by injury. Add in Holden, too, and there's a lot of consistency until the early 90s. We all know one of the issues is scale -- a few injuries kills the old version of US development.

That said, the whole "is this a new normal" versus "golden gen" is a good question.

I've firmly come down on "It's a new normal" with two caveats

• Actual world class players (i.e. Top 50 in the world so or so) are always going to be some level of outlier
• We clearly still have a TON of improvement to go

But that said, I think our view of our older teams is propped up by a weak CCAF and good tourney results from star goalkeepers and teams that practiced like club teams. And I think we're underestimating a ton of the current generation by acting like they are finished products at about age 21 and comparing them to peak performers of the past.

Pepi, Ferreira, Hoppe, Dike are all 22 or younger, but I feel like folks have written them off to some extent when McBride or either Clint weren't really ANY good at this point.

At the 2026 World Cup, we'll see a lot more what the ~1998-2002 cohort is going to be.

 

We'll see, but scanning the horizon after Reyna/Musah I have a hard time finding the next impactful player.

Going by my list of impactful player, in a 30-year period (1973 to 2002) we produced 15. One every other year. As one can imagine with any random process, it isn't one every other year like clockwork. There are droughts and clusters.

But if there is an underlying change in the process that generates these players we should be seeing more than one every other year going forward.

 

People after Musah and Reyna are 19.

Are you willing to bet that Paxten Aaronson or Ricardo Pepi or Caden Clark or Alejandro Alvarado or Jalen Neal or whomever you like -- these are all 2003s, btw -- won't be a player on the level of what you've listed? That's one year!

Going back ... what about Brenden Aaronson? Chris Richards? Do you really think Chris Richards can't be Eddie Pope? I do. Hell, Tim Weah is 22!

I guess my point is that not only aren't we anywhere near evaluating the peak ability of the "generation past Musah and Reyna" but we aren't anywhere near evaluating the generation started by Pulisic and McKennie.

I do wish international soccer had some more level of objective standard of quality -- an fwar or something, because I think that would make this discussion easier.

 

Your points are fair. I guess I'm a bit impatient for the next big thang.

But I have thought about Richards emerging as an elite defender. Center backs tend to have a slightly different aging curve.

I think Paredes is an outstanding prospect. But an uber prospect? Maybe not.

 

a secondary, but equally important question in my mind is how much better than the "average" are todays elite? There was a very large gap in talent between Donovan, Dempsey and a few others and the rest of the pack to the point where at times you could say we didn't go 11 deep. There was a gap in talent between the first and 2nd tier players and the 3rd tier players were in the first 23 and sometimes you could argue they were in the first 11.

Right now we have those you listed (Pulisic and company) as the current elite but we also have a number of players that perhaps haven't yet reached their potential coming up right behind them...Pepi, the Philadelphia crew, Richards and who know who else? I guess another way of putting it is that we really haven't established level for the average USMNT player for this age group...as you say they are very young. If we don't know the average level, we don't know what an outlier looks like either. Four years from now, Pulisic and crew may be very well established as our elite players in the same way Donovan, Dempsey and others were, or they may be facing very real competition for their spot with the first 11 in a way that Donovan and Dempsey (and others) never were.

 

This is all good stuff. But I feel like all these could apply to the 80s kids as well. How did they succeed (relatively speaking) where the early 90s kids failed? Was it just the level of concacaf caught up, was it bad luck? Or did we have unusually good luck with some of 80s players?

 

I think we did have a golden generation of sorts around the Donovan cohort.

There probably is an upward trend but it might not be as steep as it appears.