RE: 9s Strikers are really hard to develop, and they tend to take a bit longer. It's not just Germany -- Spain, Brazil, the Netherlands all have struggled recently. The best in the world are Norwegian and Polish alongside English and French (though Mbappe is more of a winger in a lot of ways). RE: Germany Elite stars are outliers to some extent. It tends to be cyclical, as countries tend to have waves. I don't know that Belgium did anything to get KDB and the rest of their generation, and even Brazil had a recent down spot that they seem to be pulling out of. Dutch fans had little hope in this World Cup because they had no Robben or Sneijder. I do think the US is going to be fundamentally less likely to develop creative attackers because we simply do not have the same pickup culture, especially at young ages. I don't know that you can systematically force that, so you might actually have to lean into the team/system model more than people would like. Germany has won a World Cup or two, so I'm not sure that's an awful thing. For me, I think US Soccer has to focus on opportunity and building that base. I don't think the star aspect is under their control either way.
Whose stock went up, down or unchanged: For me- Big up: Cowell, Luna and Craig (all three played much better than I expected) nice little bump: McGlynn, Slonina (very good players showed their class) no change: Vargas, JoGo (pretty much what I expected) little dip: Che, Sullivan, Edelman (bit of a disappointment) drop: Wolff, Tsakiris (think there were better options)
It feels like it was a mistake to take Parades and Pukstas. Nothing to do with the quality of either player and more about whether it really was worth it for them to miss the group stage entirely and not even play a ton in the knockouts.
I don’t think that was a problem at all. But I do think it wasn’t really worth it given how little they played in the knockouts. You could have had two additional players who were available the whole tournament.
Everybody remember this nonsense from last week. The tough guy was really gassing this team up after playing nobody. Some people refuse to learn after getting this lesson on a fairly regular basis. We were never favorites. We didn't have another gear and still play naively. As for the three round of 16 teams we beat, they all lost by a combined score of 12 to 3. This arrogant attitude is pervasive in this country. It was why the mood of certain fans is constantly swinging. Not good at all.
We should have played better against Uruguay. The coach went with a young midfield, who shrunk against bigger, more mature players. We didn't have a midfield. But glad you're keeping tabs on my posts and I hope you keep subscribing.
I thought they had another level and were going to win it all. Wait, didn't everyone try to tell you our opponents were weak? You were boldly wrong all the way around. Not a fan of horrible takes. This obviously wasn't your first swing at a ridiculous take that fallen way short. It probably won't be the last.
Our U20s cruised to the quarterfinals while missing a bunch of our top players. They got outfoxed by a strong Uruguay team and played poorly by their standards. Go on and tell us more about how shit MLS is at developing players. I saw some really good talent on the field for the US in this tournament, and I know the guys who weren't released are really good, too. Of note, six of our starting 11 were actually 2004s or 2005s.
My understanding going in, especially from the break down the dude with scuffed gave about the group I think back in November or December of '21 was that Covid had wreaked havoc on the bulk of the guys in that 2004 and 2005 age cohort which formed a chunk of this U20 team. So from that perspective, the fact that they qualified us with the best concacaf campaign ever (admittedly against a ---- tournament filled with horrific teams) was impressive, but the U20 tournament is largely a wash. It's not their fault the draw was ridiculous kind but it's also true to say that they beat nobody of consequence this entire cycle other than a weak Ecuador so what does it really mean? Probably not much. The individual news for individual players is interesting mix of good (the defensive prospects, the keepers, maybe Cowell) and not so good (the central midfield did not impress me and none of the attackers other than Cowell and already European promoted prospects Paredes and Aaronson along with Guti not released, impressed me). The 9 issue is clear, but the good news on that account is that we have two developing players with similar status to Altidore circa 2009 or 2010 with one more accomplished (Balogun) and one less accomplished but promising (Pepi). When you have two double digit goal scorers at age 21 and 20, you are in the best striker position the US has been in EVER. The other piece of good news is Keyrol Figueroa is probably the best striker prospect at his age (16) since Jozy nearly 20 years ago. He wasn't an U20 prospect, but he is the best striker in the pool after the two big dogs that I can see.
The good news about youth teams is that it's not a long term issue if there's a weak position or two. The 03/04 group had Pepi; 05/06 has Keyrol. That's not an abundance of riches, but from a senior team perspective it could be more than enough.
My only big quibble would be Slo, who I think did little beyond maybe 1 or 2 nice saves, and then had little chance in the QF. In general agreed.
Especially adding Balogun. People need to remember that after Jozy was developed circa 2005/2007 w/the U17s and U20's we didn't produce anything worth a damn at the striker position until Pepi nearly 15 years later and now we have both Pepi and Balogun who are probably the best strikers we've produced, along with Jozy since Brian McBride thirty years ago. We basically have 2 guys on a level with the best we've ever had at the same time at a position over the past 35 years. It's basically McBride about 30 years ago. Altidore and Davies nearly 20 years ago. Then nothing. Now Pepi and Balogun (the latter didn't produce). And Keyrol is probably the highest upside striker we've produced period since Altidore, but he's still got a long, long way to go to catch Pepi, or Balogun. So people need to appreciate what we have. There's been very little over the years in terms of natural strikers, off the top of my head it really is McBride-Eddie Johnson-Altidore-Davies-Pepi I would have no issue adding Donovan to that pile because he was fabulous as a forward. Same with Mathis, (and even Wynalda, who played more on the wing than as a striker) but both tended to be used more as mids than as Forwards so they don't fit. The fact that we have 2 at the same time for the first time in 15 years, and another about 4 years behind them in age and passing all the checkpoints so far is pretty damn good all things considered and far better than anything we've seen in forever.
We cruised by Fiji, a ---- Slovakia, a ---- Ecuador and a garbage New Zealand. I'm very happy that despite missing a few guys, they did the bare minimum, but that really was the bare minimum. They beat a bunch of teams they should have beaten, and then got squashed for the third straight time in 2 months the second they faced a real challenge (France kicked them in the nuts, England curb stomped them, and Uruguay, Uruguay'd them). I credit them with some pretty soccer, but it was also a lot like Qatar, minus the England game. They didn't beat anyone that mattered of quality, period. So as a team, we learned little. In terms of individual play, that was what was intriguing.
I always think of Donovan as a winger/outside midfielder. Yes, a forward, but not really a striker. Clint was much more a striker than Landon, to my thinking. Regardless, it's an interesting way to think of development -- by position. There's always waves, but if we take a step back and look ... 64 Wegerle 69 Wynalda 69 Stewart 71 Joe-Max Moore 72 McBride 76 Mathis 77 Wolff 83 Wondo 84 Eddie Johnson 89 Altidore 91 Zardes 92 Wood 94 Morris 97 Wright 00 Sargent 00 Ferreira 01 Balogun 03 Pepi Excuse the lack of a laundry list on all the current options. I think it is mostly irrelevant. Looking at this list, it's clear we simply don't develop strikers at all. The only players who developed in the US who have had any run of Top4/5 success in Europe that lasted more than a season were McBride and Dempsey, if you count him. McBride is such a unique case that it doesn't seem super replicable. It's just not a lot. Wynalda played well for a club that got relegated, then didn't score for another low level Bundesliga Club. Mathis barely played though he did score when he did in the Bundi. Jozy killed it at the next level down but couldn't make it Top 5. Heck, even Sargent and Pepi have so far failed at the top. Because we consistently had the same guys thirty years ago and they racked up US goals, I think we tend to overrate them a bit. Oh, it's a problem that we barely seemed to progress, but there's literally almost no baseline to measure off of.
It's not much to write home about, but I think it was nice how essentially our B team handled Ecuador and destroyed Slovakia. I think it's somwhere between something to be really excited about and something completely unimpressive like you imply. In any case, that guy's schtick is extremely tired, and it's silly for him to come at another poster like he did. Guy has a way outdated perspective on what player development in the US looks like, and this tournament was another exhibit for that.
Belz and Hartmann did a podcast on the Uruguay match. It's good, but one of the things I thought was interesting was Hartmann is not a big Wynder fan. It's a good segment. It questions some of his athleticism, and focuses on how forgiving USLC can be. He said something to the point of ... the downside of playing in USLC over MLSNP is that there's no one out there who's an elite athlete. The level of play might be higher, but the guy who is lightning quick simply isn't there. Found it interesting. I haven't seen enough of Josh to agree, but it is a different take on competition. I can't say that it doesn't feel like it applies to Gomez a bit as well.
I saw a lot of raw talent with every player having significant deficiencies in there game. I didn't see a single attacking player that I project to be usmnt starter. Most of the positive stuff looked much less convincing when they finally played a decent team. If you just look at the recent friendlies (France, England, and japan) and the game against equador we are still way, way behind. I know, I know, these kids are better than what we used to create, but not seeing anything above the type of players we have created in the past. You are satisfied with better. I see increasing the depth and floor players will help in terms of creating competition such that onenor two guys might rise above, but I see that as the first step in a long journey.
I think your last sentence is very telling. If you were expecting this to be anything other than a long journey, that's probably where the disconnect is.
What has changed is the per cycle volume of good prospects. That’s repeatable, that’s steady, that’s a sign of a functional system. It’s the product of the growth of interest in the sport from 2000 to 2010 and the professionalization of youth development. We are going to get regular batches of prospects with Aaronson, McKennie, Adams, De la Torre, Sargent, etc… level ceilings. The thing is not all guys at that level of potential hit and I think we had a period with a higher than normal hit rate on those types. I’m not even talking about the full team. I’m talking about pure performance level. A big problem with the lost generation is that the hit rate tanked. There were structural issues that have improved and now we have a larger volume of potentially useful prospects. However, just random chance can lead to a relative downturn in output. The trough won’t be as low but it’s still a possibility. All programs go through it and their fundamentals determine their peaks and valleys. Our fundamentals are like a small, first world country with a third tier league.
I don't disagree, that's pretty much where I see it. Promising signs in terms of style of play and individual performances, but also somewhat performance agnostic, because we played nobody of consequence until the QF's. This was a bad Ecuador team after all (for an Ecuador that qualifies anyway). As for the other thing, I stopped reading the posts years ago, it's a disappointing thing to say because sometimes there were quality arguments and points, but if there's never any nuance, and little steel manning (and I get that I may be straw manning myself here) of the opposing point of view, little admitting of exceptions or of being wrong about something, it becomes kind of pointless at least to me. I still read plenty of posters that are a little too much of one, two or more of those qualities, but the relentless quality of it is beyond tiresome, and I say that as someone who is usually to some degree, tilted closer to that poster than to you.
Yep, when i look at the '15, '17, '19, '21 Cancelled, and '23 class what seems different is that the supply of: USMNT regulars USMNT bench depth USMNT Cap holders Versus flat out busts who were never or largely but not totally irrelevant to the USMNT has ticked up much higher than in the aughts. In the aughts those guys were kind of like Justin Mapp, or Drew Moor, or Sal Zizzo, Eddie Gaven, Danny Szetela, guys that either approached getting caps or landed a few. Now those guys are more like George Bello, LDLT, Shaq Moore, Reggie Cannon, Paul Arriola, CCV, etc. We just have a lot more of all 3 classificiations, regulars, sometimes bench depth, and handful of caps guys. There's just more of all 3 than normal. Our regulars are just flat out, MORE than what they were 15-20 years ago of everything, and better classifications on top. We still have plenty of flame outs. At this level the flameout rate for quality top 10 teams is 75-90%, ours is lower because we're doing better than we used to, but also because it's easier to break through for us especially because of how bad things were in the past too. 2015: 8 GK: Steffen Defenders: CCV, Miazga, EPB, Shaq Moore Mids: Acosta, Arriola, Marky Delgado 2017: 9 Defenders: Trusty, EPB, CCV Midfielders: Adams, LDLT, Williamson, Lennon Forwards: Ebobisse, Sargent 2019: 10 Defenders: McKenzie, Richards, Dest, Araujo Midfielders: Ledezma, Pomykal Forwards: Weah, Soto, KDLF, Llanez You can see by the #'s. That's A LOT more than usual. There's also a lot of chaff amongst those guys. Del Gado went flying out the chute very quickly. Trusty required 6 years to become relevant, CCV came in and out, Lennon and Ebobisse had very little relevance, Araujo's gone, Ledezma and Soto are out, KDLF and Llanez have also stepped off a cliff in relevance. So even if we pulled 25 guys out of those classes, long term solutions and depth for the national team at its absolute nadir (2015-2018) amounted to only about 10 or 11 of the 25 with another subset of guys who may be breaking down the door to be regulars now (CCV, Trusty) or not really (EPB, Pomykal etc). Still, it's an amazing haul all the same, I would argue of the 25 there are around 12 that are pretty actively relevant and another few that are semi-actively relevant (guys like Miazga, EPB, Pomykal for me). Most teams pull 2-4, the past 3 classes we pulled around 8 on average, and of those 8 about half are consistently relevant, that's basically peak value you can expect. Maybe the trough comes, but if it does, I don't think it will be about crappy classes so much as just a team with in baseball parlance, blocked positions with no pathway to relevance for player prospects. We can't trade internationals so those guys will be basically double secret bonus depth for lack of a better word, and it will allow us to be a poor man's elite nation, if it keeps up, for the first time ever. A team that isn't perpetually trying to fill start positions and backup positions because we now have legit depth that would've started in the past. We're close to that and if the next few classes pan out, we will be there, at least temporarily.