Dual nationals who could suit up for the US.

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by juvechelsea, Oct 26, 2018.

  1. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    #351 juvechelsea, Jan 31, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2020
    Jesus Ferreira cleared to play for US, we'll see if they make it official tomorrow.

    Llanez, Araujo, and Servania are also duals who may get capped tomorrow.
     
    Winoman repped this.
  2. Rahbiefowlah

    Rahbiefowlah Member+

    Oct 22, 2001
    Las Vegas


    Is our guy Sanjiv missing anybody? Kind of a light list these days, no?
     
    edcrocker, Winoman and DHC1 repped this.
  3. TxEx

    TxEx Member

    Tottenham Hotspur, Crystal Palace, FC Dallas
    Aug 19, 2016
    DFW
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Sanogo and the younger Tillman.
     
    Winoman, DHC1 and Rahbiefowlah repped this.
  4. Eleven Bravo

    Eleven Bravo Member+

    Atlanta United
    United States
    Jul 3, 2004
    SC
    Club:
    Atlanta Silverbacks
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Sandler, Piere, Siebatcheu, and Balogun would all be players, I’d be talking to if I’m Gregg. But I think Toljan closed the door.
     
  5. #1 Feilhaber and Adu

    Aug 1, 2007
    Balogun Seems like one of those players, that due to having so many nationality options and coming into different countries camps, he will probably just stick with England youths for now, due to playing in England and on a top English club.

    But boy that kid shows all the signs of being the total package Striker.

    1) Shoots powerfully and accurately with both feet
    2) Fast
    3) quick feet
    3) Strong
    4) highly technical
    5) Very creative
     
  6. rgli13

    rgli13 Member+

    Mar 23, 2005
    Memphis, Tn
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    and zelalam was the next fabregas.
     
  7. #1 Feilhaber and Adu

    Aug 1, 2007
    And?


    prospects are prospects, some pan out and some don't.


    For every Zelalem, there is a Pulisic, Adams, McKennie, Reyna, and Weah.
     
  8. rgli13

    rgli13 Member+

    Mar 23, 2005
    Memphis, Tn
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    that ratio is backwards (and still way too low), im just saying you made a pretty strong argument for a kid whos more likely- statistically- the next charles renken than the next even dom dwyer.
     
  9. Dylan Fisher

    Dylan Fisher Member

    Borussia Dortmund
    United States
    Apr 12, 2019
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Odd decision by Toljan. Seems he doesn’t want to play international ball
     
  10. rgli13

    rgli13 Member+

    Mar 23, 2005
    Memphis, Tn
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    maybe he just feels hes a german (or croat, i guess) and doesnt want to just play for anybody he can. i think thats admirable.
     
  11. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    A Toljan smal hurdle of sorts is while the child of an American father they weren’t married and he died before birth. May or may not be mentioned on a birth certificate. I’ve seen some half informed Reddit types act like that’s that but they could probably prove it genetically. But it would not be your usual rubber stamp “born in USA” or “born to American parent” passport proven quickly through parental passports, birth certificates, etc. More involved.

    While I think we should be enthusiastic in seeking new players I was not a fan of Dest’s college-recruiting style ambiguity much less chasing people who could care less. I did set up this thread like here’s a list to work from. But it should be like let’s cap the best and most enthusiastic. They badly need people who play hard for the shirt right now. Now, maybe circle back around on the uncommitted once or twice a cycle. Maybe at 26 with no senior caps they find Jesus. If at that point they’re still like I don’t care, move on.
     
    Bajoro repped this.
  12. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    #363 juvechelsea, May 26, 2020
    Last edited: May 26, 2020
    Personally I get more upset on the ones like Subotic or Gonzalez where it felt like we had a chance and lost someone due to some degree of indifference or incompetence. Klinsi fixed a lot of domestic gaps with foreign digging. Part of his game a la Green was cap first and then worry what you have. Under Arena and GB we've kind of kicked over to loyalty concerns and you get on the team when you "earn it." Which in player jousts runs a risk of losing more potential players. Part of what we've seen end of last cycle and in some GB call sheets is a domestic development process not filling out our team well enough.

    I don't lose much sleep over the Rossis with a straight line of foreign YNT and NT caps for someone else. They really weren't in play and any loyalty issues are their problems.

    I think we win more than we lose, so this can get a bit silly when we lose one, but when that player says I thought I would play for you but the phone didn't ring, loyalty issues aside, we messed up. Every call isn't about merit or about gel. Or at least shouldn't be. I think we are a little too concerned with winning friendlies with fairly regular lineups -- only to then lose tournaments with continuity -- as opposed to trying to upgrade which is how you change the bigger-time results. We need to see Steffen and Pulisic and those sorts less between the meatier parts of the cycle. That to me is a dumb Donovan template that made the example player burn out. Why xerox a burnout schedule.

    Personally I think stocking the pool is more important than system, and that we should be looking far and wide for talent and then committing it by cap tying. We instead are big on continuity and system which is less justifiable when the system is novel and perhaps ill-fitting to the pool, and the continuity is middling. I'd like to see us get back to nailing down and looking at every talent we can find, and then a system that accentuates their existing abilities in the expanded pool, as opposed to tries to change the pool. Most teams don't change to systems that make them look worse or for which they don't look ready. The whole idea is to be more than the sum of your parts.

    To me you're more likely to succeed with a thoroughly researched team exploring all parts of the pool, gathering all your best, even in a vanilla system, than in this cutesy system plus hints of xenophobia or inertia. When I moved from college to men's league I found you won by recruiting as many old club friends as possible. The system was generally designed to balance offense with defense and be sensible as opposed to cute. Basically to get the system out of the players' way where we could play and the formation and such would handle issues for us. This current stuff seems almost like you're designing a system on purpose to get countered on.
     
    RalleeMonkey repped this.
  13. Ger90

    Ger90 Member+

    May 13, 2016
    Club:
    FC Bayern München
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    "Kind of a light list these days, no?"

    it's light because a lot of duals are nothing players or ones who haven't brokenthrough the pros for realz. Better to wait how players do as pros over anything youth level wise.

    that's the case in the German-American side of things and seems to be for other places too. Still no player in sight that could be as relevant option wise as Jones, Chandler, Brooks, Johnson and to some extant Morales. Jones is done, Chandler and Morales are both 30 already and Brooks is aging fast too. Brooks is youngest at 27 and there is currently no one next on the pro side of things.

    none of the younger German-Americans have done anything in 2BL and lower and most have shown themselves to not being good enough for 1BL with 2BL being their ceiling as players.

    essentially there hasn't been legit German-American options to pop up for years now.
     
  14. #1 Feilhaber and Adu

    Aug 1, 2007
    the point im making here is that for every "Highly rated" 500 prospects that don't make it there are another 500 prospects in general that eventually do. How you want to strech the numbers in the ratio is up to you, but at the end of the day, a lot of prospects still will be making it to replenish the ranks.

    And for every top viewed prospect in his age cohort , that dosent make it, suddenly here comes a few starting to make it together around the same birth year. So many random variables go into athlete science and success.

    Its a numbers game and a guessing game.
     
  15. butters59

    butters59 Member+

    Feb 22, 2013
    Also because we finally have a generation of USA produced young players, so barriers to entry are much higher. Tillmans, Greens and Zelalems don't look like saviours anymore.
     
  16. Ger90

    Ger90 Member+

    May 13, 2016
    Club:
    FC Bayern München
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    it's not about saviors though. It's about the quality not even being there to begin with. Zelalem/Green/Tillman are all overrated players if one is honest a lot of hype for no reason when younger and none have show themselves as much pro wise. I feel like the overhype was based on the club they played at.

    it's more that post Brooks the quality of German-Americans has decreased by a TON. Even a lot of the youth ones, aren't much to talk about either.

    we might never know about the Parker bros who seem to have been destroyed by injuries though.

    it's why you don't see any German-Americans to call up to USA and why everyone always brings up Toljan who has 0 USA interest because there aren't any worth considering as of now.
     
  17. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    #368 juvechelsea, May 28, 2020
    Last edited: May 28, 2020
    Few thoughts

    Re both the adults and the kids my theory is quality depth. That quantity matters as much as quality, but in the sense it's more useful to me to identify 20-30 people who maybe could be something, as opposed to concentrate too much on the perceived best few. You then take the ones who pan out. As opposed to go all-in on the few perceived bluechips only to be disappointed by some, and then have no developed Plan B. You're then starting over with adult scouting.

    This gets you around the percentage failure issue. I agree that x% are great pros, y% solid players, and z% never pan out. I am saying go more big picture because among 20-30 kids you are more likely to have the odds play out successfully over time. You focus on the elite and either Zelalem/Nagbe/etc. pans out or not.

    I think we also have this issue with the adults. We seem hell bent on handing most caps and playing time to Steffens and Pulisics we already have identified. And so the other players for that position do not get tested as much or even looked at. And then someone gets hurt. You obviously want them for the qualifying games. But we seem to want them every friendly to chase exhibition wins. Which to me blocks broader talent ID and a better chance at winning games that count. I also think you're only setting up the players constantly on planes for a Donovan Scenario where they burn out before 30. Pulisic has had a few early summer friendlies that looked like he needed rest and not more work.

    I think at least some of our mentality was shaped by the relatively successful years when we were, say, a world cup quarterfinalist or round of 16 a few times. Those teams can afford to be close knit and favor continuity. We kind of suck. I am not sure why there is incumbent bias and such a drive to narrow opportunity to a blue chip few. I want a battle for every position, a few players per spot identified who can actually play. We instead seem to pre-pick who we think SHOULD be good -- at least to the coach -- and then try and force that several friendlies. Little heed seems paid to who actually shows well in the shirt.

    I also wonder if perceived coaching quality and desirability has something to do with it. Though I think in practice JK was a mixed bag of ok success, if you think about it like college recruiting, who doesn't want to play for him? Some giddy 20 year old dual national is not necessarily thinking, meh, he only took Germany to the semis at home, he stumbled at Bayern, etc. They're like, wow, I can play for Jurgen. And we were getting pretty good results at the time where one can dream about where those two go together. Compared to, GB sucks and I doubt (m)any players came knocking on our door, "because Berhalter." Worse, you have the Fed situation we had until this year. The team underperforming and an odd duck mediocre coach. Not exactly a player magnet.

    Side note on that, we did have a dry period and it did start under JK and continue perhaps to the end of the cycle or even Sarachan's year. To me there is a question whether we know all about who could possibly play for America, or whether people come out of the woodwork unidentified, for the right coach. "You didn't know, but I have an American dad." And that if we suck or the coach is mediocre or worse, such players just stay under the radar for lack of interest. That some of what we get is walk-ins and then you need a coach they want to walk in for.

    So to me at least part of the problem is GB attracts no one. Our lack of success does not create interest. They should hire a name brand coach with proven chops that people want to play for. This is instead basically Moneyball. Oversell the value of "system" and undersell personnel. I would instead emphasize player ID, scouting, then get a coach in with a name who has a definite idea what system we are already ready for. Maximize the goods on hand rather than try and force its direction.

    Re youth, I think we should give opportunity widely. We not only do it narrowly, we drag our feet. Reyna should have been called last year. The one thing early term JK was good at was finding Julian Green type kids ready to contribute and not giving a darn where they stood in their club situations. If Pulisic was breaking in now we would have slow walked him, not called him for a qualifier. "Oh, he's only part time at Dortmund, just a kid, let's wait for him to prove himself as a first team professional, etc........"
     
  18. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    I don't get where our incumbency bias comes from. Where we seem to think Roldan is better than any other option, or Dest or Robinson all we have to work with wide. I don't see where 90% of our players have established themselves through consistent good performance, and some of the kids holding off the prospects are barely any further along on their career trajectory.

    I mean, I get it if mid career Brian McBride plays your position. But a lot of what we're doing seems to be assuming an underproven McKennie or mediocre Roldan or Boyd or Bradley or the like has "earned the position" and the noob has to wait their turn. With nearly no exceptions, if Llanez or Holmes come in and show well, it should be, "what incumbent." And that might also speed Reyna and the like into opportunity.

    We run the selection like we qualified last time. We didn't. This should have been open season. Who knows what happens going forward because we've burned that part of the cycle and next thing they'll be playing qualifiers if that gets restarted.
     
    Bajoro repped this.
  19. truefan420

    truefan420 Member+

    May 30, 2010
    oakland
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Coaches all over the world share this issue.
     
  20. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    I think incumbency makes sense when you are starting from a good place, guys who have been successful and are still playing well. A guy who has started for years and is still a good option gets to be called an incumbent and absolutely, young guns should have to unseat them. But, we started with a failure of a team and the guys I'm seeing talked about as incumbents only have a position because Berhalter came in and started playing them every game, He could have easily installed others or rotated more. It's not like we have long term incumbents that have been and continue to be successful that we need to replace over time. We have an awful lot of "incumbants" who have been regular starters for less than a year under a single coach. I think calling positions for players only put in place over the last year or so the incumbents is a bit of a stretch for the definition of the word. Guys like Roldan, Lleget, Arriola and the like are newbies themselves, not grizzled vets with a track record a new player needs to useat.
     
    Bajoro and DHC1 repped this.
  21. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    The only players I see as actual incumbants, guys who have successfully held a spot on the field for a period of time would include Altidore (who seems to be fading), Brooks (who I think still deserves his spot), Bradley (who I think is fading), Pulisic (obvious choice), Yedlin, maybe Ream in a stretch. Most of the guys playing are not incumbents. They are Berhalter's selections who never made the grade under other coaches as anything other than bit part players. It's disingenuous to act like the newer players have a solid 11 of established guys they have to win a static position from. They have mostly journeymen who have never held a national team position for any length of time getting tried out ahead of them.
     
  22. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    i think it is a common consideration. i do not think the degree to which we are content to trot out consistent people since about '16 is ordinary. the way we handled the backline and mids end of last cycle under arena. the extent to which GB has his ensemble already, regardless if they play any good.

    if you struggled out of the gate in 16 and were shipping goals i don't think most coaches would just cycle the same struggling short list of backs until their clown car went off the cliff and they missed russia.

    or, in terms of this cycle, if you had a mid-conference HS or college or club team, not assured of "postseason," middling results, i don't think most coaches would be like, let's go with the same guys and just work on my scheme harder.
     
  23. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    no, sorry, bull. particularly when a coach is handed years to try his idea, "incumbents" are "incumbents." setting aside obvious people like bradley, i agree there are players like zardes and roldan and mckennie who haven't really seized their jobs by performance, but they nonetheless get treated like they own them. that is the epitome of incumbency bias.

    whether they "make the grade" to anyone else is immaterial to long term coaching. i might agree, but the issue is that whichever coach we have, since about '14, there is like a pecking order that overrides performance. a depth chart on a board in the coach's office. people off the board are slowly tried. people who he wants to start, start, no matter how well they play. when's the last time you saw an 11 composed of just the players who have showed well? used to be if you made no impression you went away. you didn't get to stay under some theoretical excuse of "fits the system" or "reliable veteran." how reliable are they if we lose all the tough games? how well do they play if we never surprise anyone? who's the last player you watched who against a good opponent themselves stood out?

    guzan never plays consistently well. does not show well on MLS stats either, despite playing for a leading team. but he's right back in the #2 keeper slot. because "line of succession."

    late klinsi had his set of favorites. ditto arena. ditto berhalter. those favorites, regardless of performance, are deemed the core. except most struggling teams don't assume they have it all figured out. except we have a coach who was usually midtable MLS and had to make due.

    we agree the new players should have the chance to knock off any weak links they can find. what you're not admitting is how little chance they get to do so. or even if they do it, we find an excuse to revert. noobs like holmes or llanez or sargent show well and we go back to status quo. sargent in particular has fought back to get in the rotation, but that's not because he was rewarded for scoring goals for sarachan. it's almost like he had to start over. it's not the slightest bit disingenuous to point out the degree to which we lean status quo and sandbag the upcoming talent. this is not the setup where donovan or pulisic or beasley could come right in at 18 and prove themselves. this is the coach will talk up some theroetical upside in zardes or roldan and someone with a higher upside will sit until they become first team in europe and basically cannot be denied anymore.

    irony being when sargent finally scores a couple early season first team goals, he gets upgraded from Olympic level, and then he goes cold the rest of his club season. he should be up on talent alone. but we wait on first team form even if that actually proves fickle, a roller coaster.
     
  24. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    roldan is an example too. about 15 appearances in a fair amount of big games, and often put in, in a kind of preki regular supersub role. preki earned that role with memorable goals. i am not sure if i have ever found one of roldan's outings impressive. historically in US soccer that would be that and you'd disappear a cycle.

    the implication is no one else in the pool could be more impactful or better than that. that's what 15 chances for him says. that's what subbing him in a goal down to mexico says.

    true of many starters, true of most of his bench. they are on the team because they are veterans of the team informed in his system. circular. under a program with any ambition and common sense, our losses of last year would lead to a rethink of system and personnel. if anything the system worsened results. and if your goal is beat mexico normally losing to mexico screams, hmmm, you haven't got it figured out.
     

Share This Page