2001 vs 2002 Who you got?

Discussion in 'Youth National Teams' started by Marcus OMalley, Apr 6, 2020.

Tags:
?

Which XI are better?

  1. 2001

    9 vote(s)
    90.0%
  2. 2002

    1 vote(s)
    10.0%
  1. Marcus OMalley

    Newcastle, Louisville City
    United States
    May 24, 2017
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  2. David Kerr

    David Kerr Member+

    Liverpool
    United States
    Oct 18, 2019
    from the guy who wrote both posts, 2001 all day
     
  3. ussoccer97531

    ussoccer97531 Member+

    Oct 12, 2012
    Club:
    --other--
    2001 age group is better. 2002 is a very weak age group all-around. 2001 isn't great either, but it has some depth.
     
  4. David Kerr

    David Kerr Member+

    Liverpool
    United States
    Oct 18, 2019
    The tough question will be who would win between the 2001's and the 2003's. Both age groups are very talented. Personally, I'm taking the 2003's.
     
    Marcus OMalley repped this.
  5. TarHeels17

    TarHeels17 Member+

    Jan 10, 2017
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    My only issue with the '01s is that so many of them come from non-traditional paths. It looks like a very weak age group in terms of talent when you look at how much significant time each player spent in MLS academies.

    It's a good group, sure, but it's still not great production from what we expect to be the main pipeline.
     
  6. JacobR

    JacobR New Member

    Manchester United
    United States
    Apr 3, 2020
    While the 2001s are certainly deeper, I think you can make an argument that the 2002s, behind the star power of Reyna (arguably the top US prospect ever) and Hernandez-Foster (best left back prospect) will eventually have a greater impact on the full national team.


    In general, is it better to have a handful of good prospects or a couple studs?
     
    don Lamb repped this.
  7. ussoccer97531

    ussoccer97531 Member+

    Oct 12, 2012
    Club:
    --other--
    I think it's best to evaluate these players in what they showed in the youth game, and not use results to guide how we look at these years when they were coming up the ranks. Reyna didn't produce anywhere near the best US prospect ever. There are multiple recent players who were better in the youth teams than Reyna was. He's now developing extremely well in the professional game and its possible he ends up the best US player ever (not a high bar), but thats using hindsight. Should we say Weston McKennie was the best box to box CM prospect ever when he didn't even make the U-17 WC team?

    I also think your KHF claim is a stretch. I don't even think it's clear he's better than Jonathan Gomez in the next year. There are probably also people who prefer Bello to KHF. Many certainly did a year ago. For the first year of his U-17 cycle, KHF was a fringe player on the team. He had a good second year of the cycle and hopefully he can continue to contribute to our YNT's, but he got a late start to be making that type of claim IMO. Up until about a year ago, he wasn't even that highly regarded, so he's not performed as the best LB prospect for that long (if he's done so at all, considering he's played mostly CB for YNT's).

    I think its best not to evaluate 2002 with hindsight of how they turned out as pros. Hopefully the year produces a lot of good players, but at youth level it's been pretty dismal. They haven't gotten good results, there have been relatively few players who've shown they were high level prospects, and the depth in the youth pool for this age group has been very weak. It's always possible that the year ends up being productive in producing players for the NT, but I don't think that will tell you much about the age group when they were YNT players.
     
  8. David Kerr

    David Kerr Member+

    Liverpool
    United States
    Oct 18, 2019
    In my opinion it is better to have a handful of good prospects. You never want to invest in too few of options because if they don’t work out then you are left with nothing (observe the current usmnt after the complete L that was the early/mid 90’s age groups). If you have a handful of good prospects there a good chance one or two end up great but if you have 1-2 studs and a bunch of average there is just as good of a chance that none of them work out
     
  9. gogorath

    gogorath Member+

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    In hindsight or with foresight?

    I ask because, in hindsight, the outcome you want is undoubtedly a couple of studs. Two great players a class builds a pretty good national team, much better than a large pool of mediocre talent.

    But that's outcome, in hindsight.

    If we're talking about 17 year olds, in the moment, looking forward, you probably want volume overall. While Pulisic was a known start at that age, and Reyna has broken out there, the vast majority of our other top players over the years and top prospects now even at the U20 or U23 level weren't necessarily the top players at 16 or 17.

    For every Donovan, there's a Dempsey. Or more. There's an impression that the best players in the world were already that at 17, and that's true for some. But not all. And certainly not for the average standard of player that national team could get and still improve.
     

Share This Page