The year Dempsey scored the wonder goal against Juventus was a really special breakthrough year for Americans abroad. He played at an extremely high level in the prem for several seasons. Fulham was a better team back then as well.
I disagree entirely. This issue is on Fonseca for not establishing or communicating his authority here. Further fault should be placed on Theo Hernandez. As captain, he should be enforcing what the manager had publicly said. As for the “timid” thing: if Pulisic makes a scene on the field, it’s even worse of a look for the team, and it becomes a worse look for him than being “passive.” Pulisic bears no responsibility on who takes the penalties. That, again, is on the manager to dictate and his captain to enforce.
I mean, by the overall numbers CP's about to blow Dempsey away. He's already comfortably in front... Dempsey had over 0.6 goals + assists per90 1 single time in his EU career, in the 11-12 prem. CP has already done that 9 times, in the CL & every league he's played in. And that's leaving off multiple more times he did it on really little minutes, in like domestic cups like EFL or pokal. I love Clint, but how is CP not well beyond him as a footballer? Clint never did anything for a top club... 1 season for Spurs, with decent production? CP has only ever played at top clubs. Landon too is a great producer for the US and a great athlete and has had a tremendous career on his own terms and I love him for what he did for US soccer... but as a footballer? CP easily clears him too.
For whatever reasons Pulisic isn't capable to do for the NT team what Donovan could. Leadership, vision, intangibles, the whole team was much better with Donovan. And Pulisic might be a better role player than Donovan and more valuable for super clubs.
It was a different era. Its not a direct comparison. Pulisic is standing on the shoulders of Dempsey in some ways just as others are standing on Pulisics shoulders today and will tomorrow.
There's some truth to this, but this isn't like comparing Curry to Jerry West or whatever... this is just one generation apart here. Clint's peak was around 11-12, CP's peak started basically 10 years later. The numbers and respective skillsets speak for themselves IMO. Clint might be a better leader and an intangibles guy, but CP is well beyond him in terms of skillset and playing at the highest level. Clint was at a top club for 1 year.
In 2011-12, Dempsey had 17 goals and was fourth in the Premier League in goals scored. Only Van Persie, Rooney, and Aguero had more goals, and those 3 are legends of the Premier League. Dempsey's World Cup goal against Ghana is arguably the best goal ever scored by an American. He is the toughest SOB to ever put on a US jersey. Dempsey played and scored in 3 World Cups. He scored 57 national team goals. I love me some Pulisic, but people have short memories.
Here’s a question for you. It’s subjective. If you took 26 yr old Landon and 26 yr old Pulisic and they were both theoretically available on the market at the same time, how would you compare their profiles and which would have superior value.
Again, Dempsey had better than 0.60 goals + assists per90 1 single time. In one competition, for Fulham in the prem. CP has done that numerous times in numerous competitions -- EPL, Serie A, CL more than once, etc. Clint has 83 goals + assists in a top league & in European cup competition. Pulisic has 106, and is just entering his prime in terms of production. The emotional "he sure was tough!" argument... it's worth nothing here. I'm not arguing about how you feel about watching Dempsey, I'm arguing about producing on the highest level. I like Dempsey, but this is not close.
Friend thinks this was not intentional. Basically he stretched to make a play and put it back across into a dangerous area and it worked out. His celebration kind of leans towards that.
I don't know about that, from the field view he seemed to be looking at the exact spot where the ball ended up?
Emotion has nothing to do with it. They are different players that played different positions. Apples and oranges. Clint had a much harder path to greatness, so his success was delayed. He was not afforded the same opportunities as Pulisic. Nevertheless, Pulisic has taken advantage of his opportunities. I take my hat off to him. I have nothing but good things to say about each player. Pulisic is on track to be the best American player ever. But even he has not yet done what Dempsey did. Dempsey scored 17 goals for Fulham in one season. The most Pulisic ever scored with Chelsea is 9. Pulisic is more physically gifted than Dempsey. He has world class quickness and great speed. He is improving technically every year. The Pulisic story has not yet finished. There are still many seasons ahead. Compare Pulisic with Dempsey at the end of his career, but give Dempsey his due. For now, this might be the year that Pulisic breaks Dempsey's record.
Exactly, CP has only played at clubs with massive talent/economic advantages over his average opponent. In the EPL, with all that extra help around him, Pulisic was as good individually as Clint at his peak for a couple months. Against lower levels of competition (with a similar talent advantage tailwind) he has been more productive but not better than he was for those two months until arguably now, when he is matching that form. Did we watch those early Fulham teams and see how absolute shite they were or not? No help, no creation, little talent. They made some good signings, modernized their tactics, and voila, Clint is productive. How can an attacking player who is largely about high leverage moments clear another while being just as productive but against worse opponents?
It is literally all about how a player performs as an individual. That determines how good a player is. Anything else is extraneous.
"17 for Fulham" doesn't mean anything when you take out the emotional part... where are the assists? CP isn't a striker, the metric here isn't the one single thing that benefits Dempsey over the course of his career. Why would that be the case? Again, CP outperformed everything Dempsey's done in terms of direct goal contributions... aka, goals + assists. Per90 & overall totals, CP is ahead. Numbers don't lie.
... but CP outperforms Dempsey. I'd argue Dempsey being effectively a gritty volume shooter for a bad club is easier than what CP has done... Dempsey wouldn't even get the opportunity to be allowed to do what CP has done. Mostly because of his limitations as a footballer. Are we just cherry-picking raw goal-scoring stats? That's the only thing I can think of that would lead us down this argument that Dempsey is "as productive". But I'm talking about an overall skillset -- passing, creativity, ball progression, dribbling, possession, shot accuracy, overall productivity (goals + assists), etc. I'm not talking about one single stat for one season. Dempsey getting 17 goals for a bad side does not make him as productive or as effective an attacker as CP.
That's highly illogical captain. It's harder to contribute on a weaker side as they spend far less time in the final third.
A lot of these numbers are going to be pretty hard to compare given the teams they played for. For example, Fulham were in the bottom half of the table in shots on goal for all but 2 of the seasons Dempsey played there (both of them very productive ones for Clint), whereas Pulisic's clubs have been top 4 in the table in terms of shots on goal for all but 1 of the seasons he's played in (which also happens to be the only season where Pulisic's G+A/90 numbers were lower than Dempsey's during his time in the Premier League). On the other hand, Pulisic's clubs are going up against bunkers/set defenses a lot more often than the average team does. I remember thinking at the time that this was part of the reason Donovan struggled at Bayern but thrived at Everton. In just about every appearance he made at Bayern (all of them as subs), he was going up against defenses that were sitting back very deep, and his skillset was just not particularly suited to breaking them down. Now Dempsey is not Donovan, but neither of them had Pulisic's skillset either for that, and given that, I don't think it's complete luck (or simply down to a lack of opportunities for earlier YAs) that Pulisic was the first American field player to start regularly for a superclub.
You seem to think that people are debating you as to whether Dempsey is a better player than Pulisic. It is too early for that, and they are two different kinds of players who play in different positions. What I'm saying and I think what others are saying is that Dempsey has done more in his career, but Pulisic is only halfway. So give it some time, and do not forget all the things that Dempsey has done. Best 3 club years (so far): Dempsey: 17, 12, and 7 league goals Pulisic: 12, 9, and 6 league goals Pulisic is on pace to score 27 goals and 11 assists. That would be the best performance ever by a US player in a top 5 league.
I view at as Pulisic clearly wins in terms of club resume and stature. But there's a lot of other elements to building a footballer's legacy, especially viewed through the overall lens of American soccer and its progression. Personally I can't say Pulisic has yet surpassed Donovan or Dempsey.
Market Value ≠ Player Quality At 26 Pulisic is ahead of where Donovan was in terms of overall quality. If the light bulb has turned on, then he is into his peak earlier and he’s solved one of his weakness and eliminated the most damaging argument against him, that he’s kind of a feast or famine type player. Even if he dips back down I would argue he is still ahead. Basically as a dribbler and box arriver Pulisic relies on a few high leverage, low % moments a match to provide value. At his best he was making frequent runs into attacking spaces, being found either in shooting areas, or situations where his 1v1 quality could really pay off, and advancing the ball on the dribble. The volume of high risk, high reward moments was paying off. Without that volume of moments he’s a functional passer whose decision making is fine enough and a 1v1 threat who can be funneled into help. Basically that’s what happened to him at Chelsea in his last 3 seasons (his national team production also dropped by a third). He stopped making as many threatening runs, the high leverage moments dried up, and he didn’t really provide much value elsewhere. At Milan, in the first season, his high leverage moments didn’t jump back up like one would expect with a step down in opposition level. Instead they stayed in line with his 3 weaker seasons at Chelsea. In half his starts (where he made it out of the locker room for the 2nd half) he had .2 or less npxG+xA. That’s not good, that’s like taking one and setting up one a bit below average shot a start. However the ball, it did go in for him and the teammates he passed to. He built on that variance and the consistent place in the starting lineup he earned. This season his involvement has jumped back up to lockdown Puli levels (aka great). When a player’s value proposition is so tied to those high leverage moments then volume really determines their level. A guy who produces average volume is pretty replaceable by the guys who do that and add value in other ways. A guy who produces well above average volume is worth his weight in gold. Consistency, fittingly, remains the theme when talking about Donovan. Landon picked and chose when and where to focus his competitive energy. Lucky for us he valued national team games higher than club play. Unlucky for all of us that consistent, focused competitive output makes it easier to perform at one’s best and improve. I really believe that the Everton loan is when that clicked for Donovan. So while he was consistently applying himself for us, by also doing that with his club he stayed sharper. Pulisic has been in environments that demand this since he was 16. LD also picked up some moves that allowed him to open up space for service that helped his game when facing situations where he couldn’t rely on pure pace. Unfortunately for this conversation all that happened after age 26. However as a player type he was more of a high volume creator who made a lot of incisive passes. That tends to mean that type of player is more consistent (relative to talent level) and less feast or famine than other types of attackers. Part of that is that players with an eye for a pass also have it for the pass before the pass. At age 26 Donovan had scored 35 goals at a .39 G/90 clip (avg Elo of 1661.4) with 7 PKs so .31 npG/90. Pulisic has 31 goals at a .54 G/90 clip (avg Elo of 1585.5) with 7 PKs so .42 npG/90. TransferMarkt has very incomplete assist records pre-2010. For instance they don’t record 27 of Donovan’s assists. Those missing assists come from before and after he turned 26 (mostly before) so until I find a source that matches those missing assists with the games they came in I can’t run the numbers on them. I suspect that LD’s up to age 26 assist rate is higher than Pulisic’s because of when TM’s records got better and the assist rate they credit him with post turning 26 (which could still involve some missing assists). That also means I can’t run a G+A/90 or npG+A/90 comparison. I suspect Pulisic leads the first category and it’s close in the second (again with Donovan’s production coming against higher quality international competition). Goals probably should be valued more than assists and Pulisic’s end product is more goal heavy so he has the advantage despite being more hit or miss (which he looks like he might have fixed by upping his volume) and coming against weaker teams (Donovan’s counter threat and set piece/service targets help him have the advantage here). If Pulisic’s current form is just his new level then he should also pull away at the international level and will be a class above Donovan. If this is just a hot couple months and he reverts to prior practices then it’s closer but (with typical improvements and a higher starting point entering his peak) Pulisic should have the edge.
That’s silly. I’d settle for produce more end product and against better opposition at the national team level. Isn’t that what matters.