I think in this hypothetical super u20 game, France would beat us and control the game doing so. Maybe 4-1 like the England u17 game in India. There are two reasons: 1. This team can’t possess the ball well enough to break a good high press. 2. The weak link in this cycle is the defenders, and I think they’d get exposed. But games like this are exactly what our teams need. They need more exposure to the faster, high press style that many of the best teams play. Players in Europe get used to this, but players in the USL and DAs need to learn how to play at a faster pace.
Our U17s beat France in France last cycle. This U23 France team is very talented but their U20s are closer to the level of our players.
I think this cycle has a number of good possession players. Carleton, Pomykal, Taitague are all good possession players. Some of the #6's are good on the ball, Durkin, Sands, Torres. I do worry about the #8 position from a possession standpoint, but if Booth plays, it nullifies the possession issue from that position. If we have Garces in goal, thats the best possession goalie we have in the pool at any level. I think we'd lose, due to the defenders, we are weak defensively, but I'm not sure we'd get played off the pitch, like you suggest. And that 4-1 against England was deceiving, could've easily been 4-3, 4-2, 5-3, 6-4, something like that. We didn't really take our chances. It was a lot closer than a 4-1 game.
I agree those players are generally good in possession, but I’m not sure about how they’d handle a good high press as a team. It seems like every US team gives the ball away the first half and then collapses into a bunker in the second when they face the high press. I don’t know if the coaches don’t prepare them right, or if it’s the players not adjusting or not being experienced enough to handle it. And yes, the England game could’ve been 4-3, but England definitely was the aggressor in that game. I’d see this hypothetical matchup going in a similar fashion- France possesses well, creates some chances, exposes our lack of defense and propensity to give the ball away, but we show we have some talent and create some chances that may or may not turn to goals.
Our U20s vs. France. Top row: Sargent, Rennicks, Perez, Uribe, McKenzie, Scott. Bottom row: Perry, Torres, Goslin, Carleton, Real.
Always interesting to see what a second match in several days against the same side brings. Will they build on what they learned in their first encounter? How quickly can they integrate the style of play they faced and turn the game to their advantage? Or will they be simply over-matched? I like the back to back format. It's easier to build team cohesion in competitive situations and you can better see how individuals player react to "adversity".
It would make sense to try Pomykal in that spot. He's getting reps for FCD at the 8 and 10 and they don't need him at the 10 with Carleton (could back him up). Is Booth better at that spot? Be good to have depth to rest players anyway.
I don't think Pomykal has the defensive game for the position, and I think his offensive game is wasted there. Maybe if we play one of these Island CONCACAF nations in qualifying, but otherwise, I don't like the idea of it. Pomykal needs to be on the field, but I think its most likely in a wide position. Which wide players do we have that are better than him?
How about the disappearing act known as Blaine Ferri ? Raise your hand if you were confused by Ferri's plan before, and even more confused now. I wonder what position Indiana Vassilev is going to be groomed in at Villa..................
I agree on both fronts, but neither should be in contention for the U-20's, IMO. As for Vassilev's position, I'd say probably as a #10.
Academically, Ferri is a year behind most of the U17 guys from last cycle. He's not set to finish HS till 2019 and he's not in an MLS academy - presumably by choice as I figure Dallas (or another team if he were willing to move) would gladly take him. He's clearly moving to his own drummer. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he goes the NCAA route for a year or two. But, I seem to recall he has Italian grandparents so he might get that passport and seem if he can latch on somewhere in Europe. Basically, I have no information to add.
The player I'm more curious about from the 00 pool is George Acosta. He's already 18 and supposed to finish HS this year. He played for North Carolina FC last year but haven't heard a peep about him since the U17 WC.
I watched the game until Sargent and Carleton came out. France was the better team. We had some players who could hold their own, but like what usually happens with our youth teams, we had some players who were shockingly bad, and were the reason why we struggled. The Good: The only three American players who I would say were "good" were Scott, McKenzie and Carleton. Scott made some nice saves, nothing great and he didn't stand on his head, but he kept France from scoring an extra goal or two. I thought McKenzie was very good. The defense around him was a disaster, but he kept putting out fires, and was good in the buildup. Carleton was excellent in possession, and always made the right decision. There wasn't much going for this team offensively, but he had a few nice offensive sequences. Go to around 54:00 for him owning a French player. The "Okay": I would put Goslin, Sargent, Perez, Amaya and Llanez in this category. The first two were decent enough, Perez was exposed, but I'll grade on a curve because he was going against Karamoh and say he was okay, he wasn't as bad as some of the others. Amaya and Llanez came in at the beginning of the second half, and didn't do anything too good or bad. Goslin was a one man island in CM. He mostly did his job, had a few bad passes, but its hard to fault him. Sargent had absolutely no service. Maybe one or two instances where he and Carleton weren't on the same page, and one shot from around 20 yards. Otherwise, absolutely nothing, but he worked hard and did the target work. Tough game for a CF. Perez was mostly bad, but he did show effort to get forward, and occasionally made some defensive players. He struggled with his positioning and passing. The "bad": There was a lot of bad. Uribe, Real, Torres, Perry and Rennicks all go into this category. Uribe was terrible positionally. McKenzie had to cover for him nearly the whole game because he kept getting caught out. And he lost the ball in some bad spots. Real looked like a minimum ability guy who gives good effort, but was exposed against good competition. Torres was the worst player on the field, and it wasn't close. He was constantly caught way too far up the field, and left Goslin to defend attacks right down the center. He lost the ball almost every time he touched the ball. Perry might've not had a positive sequence the whole match, but different from Torres, he was playing winger, so his bad play was less of a problem. Perry looked completely exposed, couldn't make anything happen against good defenders. Rennicks wasn't that much better, but he had one or two nice sequences. I still think he looked bad, and exposed against better competition.
I watched maybe 10 random mins of the first half. Carleton still reads game well, and seemingly got quicker. Intercepted ball twice in those minutes. Kind of a point guard interceptions.
I can’t find video anywhere but a random betting site has the game tied at half. The USA has supposedly had more possession and more attacking succes but no goals to show for it.
The video is looping for me which is odd; according to the site I found the game ended 1-0 in favor of the USA. Don’t know how much I trust it though.