State of YNT Roster & Team Selection Thread

I have to say if the kids who just beat Belgium and Portugal are backups with their clubs we are gonna be an all-conquering army once the USSF gets off its ass and calls up the right dudes.

 

Btw I understand the commendable reluctance to say anything negative about a particular player. But maybe just maybe it would advance the discussion if when we complain about selection we offer something concrete. Like player X should have been selected ahead of player Y. Maybe. It doesn't have to be anything more than that.

 

I'll say with respect to the U-17 team, it impresses me when they bring in new guys like Harangi and Esmanech and they are immediate contributors. Soma has been a good find as well, and he's in a fairly obscure club situation.

 

It's also interesting that Wellings is probably the guy on the team who has gotten the most love around here. Yet when watching the team the past couple matches I'd have to say that while he is an excellent player and prospect, he wouldn't be in the top 5 for me. Carmona, for example, who has rarely been mentioned on these boards strikes me as a better prospect. So I'd have to say based on what I've seen in this tournament the USSF selection process is superior to the wisdom around here. Not that I want to leave the impression that I don't appreciate the insights shared by all the posters around here.

 

I'm waiting for someone to write a knowledgeable pile of words about how outsiders are supposed to make sense of the Spanish club setup outside the obvious big-name organizations. If a guy at UE Cornella turns out to be one of our best U17-eligible players -- well, does that mean anything worth knowing? Or is it just a fluke more or less?

 

I myself have offered a criticism over the years about the discrimination against kids born in the second half of the year. I've expressed the view that the situation is so difficult to remediate that the USSF should go to the extreme of instituting quotas for players disadvantaged by the month in which they are born.

 

I'm curious about the backstory of how he ended up there. He's obviously talented. But he seems to be receiving some very good training. I have found a little on his background. It seems he comes from a family with roots in Brazil that migrated to Florida before his birth. But I'm not even sure of that. There are some youtube videos of when he was ten or eleven. He was chubby and didn't look that athletic. Had some nice skill though.

 

Esmanech had a shocker really, don't want to be harsh but the kid looked very shaky. I expect we will see another GK in the next camp alongside Kochen.

 

Parents are both American, mom is Brazilian decent. Great player that will play a big role in this cycle, but I fear he's reached his maximum in terms of physical attributes/height. He's one of many Florida kids that ended up at that Marcet School in Barcelona before going to Cornella.

 

I cannot speak to others' minds or what all went into the decision of the call-ups for various games.

Baring any outside issues like injury, or requests not to call someone up. I am actually glad that for tournaments and friendlies the national team is spreading the "love" around.

Most of these kids are amazing athletes, and if they aren't given opportunities to showcase themselves or be seen at a national level. Two things are likely to happen. One, and most likely the player will go on to play in college and then never play again at the pro level or play lower-level pro domestically. The goal for the US and the MLS is to highlight our talents and players to get them signed to pro contracts before going to college. This way they get a slice of the transfer fees.

Two, and less likely but still very probable. The kid as a great athlete decides to leave soccer for a more domestically lucrative professional career. These are young kids who are amazing athletes. It isn't uncommon to hear about how some American football player or basketball player played soccer and then switched to a different sport. Don't have to look much further than Matt Gay and the LA Rams.

Remember most of these athletes were also playing other sports before focusing on Soccer, and that shift back to other sports if they feel they will be better rewarded for their efforts is something soccer is always fighting against here in the US.

 

He is physically mature. The rest of his development will be skills and the mental side. It will be interesting to see how his career plays out versus someone like Axel who presumably has a fair amount of physical development ahead of him.

 

I obviously don't know everything that takes place. I am far from knowledgeable about every relevant decision, and I'm mostly talking out of my ass (like everyone) with maybe a few extra bits of knowledge and thought put into topics like this, but this is my take. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.

I think my biggest problem is this.

The interests of those selecting the teams are not what the interests are for us as fans. Our interests as fans are for the best prospects to be selected, for them to get a platform to showcase their abilities, for us to enjoy watching them play, and for them to turn into players that can help the USMNT eventually.

I think with some of these YNT selections we see two main things that run contrary to that.

1. There's a lot of input in selecting these teams from people who are not capable of assessing anywhere near the whole pool.

I think how the decision-makers approach receiving feedback here is key. If you ask a coach, a youth technical director, an area scout an open-ended question, you let their own biases seep in too much. What club X or Y needs is often very different from what the National Team needs. It should merely be a fact-finding mission. These decision-makers should have their minds made up pretty concretely about who are the relevant players, and they should only be talking to these clubs and/or their area scouts for any input about the player's personality, work-ethic, and maybe some things that aren't visible about their skillset from watching games. That can help weed out players who may appear talented, but there could be some things that aren't so visible to the outside public.

If you instead go ask a club which players they'd recommend for YNT's or even let them pick their call ups with a certain allotment, you get players who are related to key-figures at the club being selected or players who have a close relationship with an agent the club needs to satisfy getting selected. I won't name the names, but both of these instances have occurred for YNT players selected in 2022, and IMO neither of these players are YNT level players. I won't say that its impossible the motives were good for these selections, but I think this idea that everything that happens in football at the youth level being above board is incorrect.

I've even heard of instances where the club will recommend against calling in certain players because the club wants to hurt that player's exposure to teams in Europe, obviously without telling that to USSF. These clubs are self-interested, as they should be. Some of these area-scouts that USSF seeks input from may also be close with a club. I think if we want the best results, we need people making the decisions that are detached.

2. Often times the YNT coaches will call in players who are presently good, but lack upside.

I know some people think this is an impossible topic to determine, so it's a worthless discussion, but I don't think it is.

The idea that you can't determine upside of a U-15, U-16, U-17 player is ridiculous IMO. Some just have more than others. There are going to be kids that have tools (or a combination of tools) that can carry them to pro soccer, regardless of the rest of their game. I'll give two examples, and since I think this is praising players instead of criticizing, I'll use names. Myles Nicholes and Tomo Allen are two good examples for me of some of these problems.

Two of the top 07's in my estimation. Both of these kids haven't yet been in any of the '07 camps yet. A number of their teammates have been. WIth Nicholes, the kid is an obvious elite level athlete (above-average height, strong, very fast) for a CB and can pass the ball. There are things he needs to work on. I've mentioned them before, but I find it really hard to see the outcome where he doesn't reach professional soccer. Will he end up reaching his ceiling? I don't know, but there's clear high upside due to his tools. Allen is another one that has some elite tools (6'2/6'3 CF with pretty good athleticism and elite level technique). Maybe he ends up only being as good as Omar Salgado. I don't know, but you cannot tell me that he doesn't have elite level tools that will carry him to pro soccer, at minimum.

Compare that to some of their teammates called into YNT camps. I'm not going to start naming the names, but you can go look it up. I'd be shocked if their teammates who've been called into YNT camps so far equal 1 international cap at the senior level for the USMNT (or a team at that level). Why? These players simply don't have the upside. Maybe these are consistent, versatile, hard-working players who do exactly what the coach asks of them. Maybe it's something else. I'm not qualified to say in all these cases why the decisions are made, but something is off with these decisions.

I think this is a big problem particularly with some of the CB selections. I've started to notice a lot of CB selections at these lower levels they will select a consistent kid without any standout attributes who won't make the egregious error, but doesn't have any obvious carrying tool to pro soccer. That doesn't mean those kids won't end up the best players. Maybe they do, but I wonder what the motivation behind some of those selections is. Is the coach trying to select the players with the best chance of becoming USMNT players or is the coach selecting the players who will best help current results?

I'd really hope we aren't selecting YNT's based on who can best help current results, but looking at some of the selections you can't help but think thats a factor. I'm not suggesting that we select the "All-Upside" team of kids with the flashiest tools of best size, speed, dribbling ability. I think you need to balance the selections. There are going to be some players that have upside that it seems pretty realistic that they can hit with some further refinement. There are going to be players that are extreme long-term projects to hit their upside. I would not suggest the latter players need to be called in. When assessing prospects, you factor in the likelihood players can turn their tools into consistent success as professionals.

I would also then say there are a few factors that aren't intentional, but are negatively influencing the selections.

1. ID camps

We've seen a lot of these ID camps in recent years, partly due to COVID and how it's effected the ability to assess players otherwise. I think they are actually a detriment. I think you risk diluting the body of work for a small sample. I don't even see the need for these ID camps for the majority of players. For instance, what is so difficult with trying to assess the best 06's in Texas? Why do you need to see all of them in the same setting? What if the second best player is playing on a bad ankle that week?

If ID camps are held, it should be for the kids that play off the radar. The kids who play against competition bad enough that you can't properly asses their level. I don't see how it's hard though to compare a CM playing for Inter Miami compared to one from Weston. They'll probably even go up against each other a few times per season.

2. Big tournaments

I think this is also a detriment. YNT call ups should not be based on who plays well at the winter showcase or GA Cup or MLS Playoffs. They should be based on who plays well throughout the season, including those events.

For instance, that Portland team that won the U-15 division won it with smoke and mirrors. They have a few more kids with a chance to be pros than I initially thought, (I had only seen 2-3 games of the team, so the sample was where I got it wrong), but their best prospect was injured in the second game of the tournament and their second best prospect didn't even play that well during that tournament. I don't even think the team played that well. I think they got pretty lucky.

Are you going to now tell me we must see 3-4 of those kids who gained a lot of hype from that tournament that need call ups to the '07 YNT? I'd say very little on the larger picture should change from that group. You consider Nystrom and Carter as options for the '07 group. Maybe a few of the other kids are considered for a camp (VanPelt, potentially Zamudio), but there's no great need to see a lot of those kids in a YNT camp. The reason being most of them are not up to that level.

3. Lack of knowledge of coach

I think this is more of a temporary problem. I advocate for one big decision-maker who is selecting these rosters. I don't think the clubs or a scout (or even an agent) should be influencing these rosters.

The person selecting the team should be the coach. Thats how it works with the senior team. Why shouldn't that be how it works with the U-15's or U-16's? Their job description should have them watching a lot of the relevant names, and assessing which are the players to call in.

I think though that obviously we have some recent hires that don't know the pool that well. If you even read some of their interviews, they giveaway that they don't. It takes a long time to build up knowledge of a whole age group. It takes a lot of time.

This is why we need stability with these positions. If you have fill-in coaches, we know the people selecting the team won't be the coach. If you switch the U-15 or U-16 coach every year or two (or don't have a coach for a few years), you obviously don't have a coach who is watching these players on a daily basis to evaluate who to call in for the next camp.

This should get better, as long as the coaches we've hired are going to stay in the position. I would like to think that they are already preparing for upcoming cycles just from seeing some of these kids from the games they are watching now to assess the current options.

It's a problem now though because I think we have to admit that we have coaches who don't know the pool very well. As someone who tries to assess these players as a hobby (and obviously doesn't put into it anywhere near the time that a coach should be), I don't think it's possible to familiarize yourself with the pool in a few weeks or a month. I think it would probably take 3-4 months, minimum, and thats probably with a lot of extra hours of work done.

 

I'll observe that these distinctions may be true but they do not represent some sort of conflict.

An example of a conflict would be: We want the best player but coach wants his son. Except for the exceedingly rare case where the son is the best player.

 

I won't be narcissistic enough to think I'm the only one who this applies to, but on my end since I think it applies to me, to some extent, I am not going to start trashing kids by name.

If we are are talking about Paul Arriola or Julian Green or Sebastian Saucedo, I have no problem coming right out and saying they are not very good and shouldn't be in consideration for the USMNT. These are adults that are professional athletes. Criticism comes with the territory.

I just think it's very poor form to be overtly criticizing the kids that aren't that good. You will not see me doing that. Not going to happen. I'll take the criticism that comes my way because I won't do that.

This is a very delicate subject. There is a lot of passion about youth sports in this country. Much more than people would think. I think all of us on a website like this are interested for some of the same reasons. It's exciting to know who is next and who will become a big star. The variable of these being kids makes the nature of the discussion even more delicate.

On my end, I recognize that at 15 or 16 I would not have been able to react appropriately to someone telling me I wasn't good enough, so I'm going to take from that, and not do to these kids what I wouldn't have been able to handle. Some of them can handle it, but others can't.

What I will do is continue advocating for the players I view as the best players, and I'll let that do the talking. I very often give my own opinions on what players I want to see, who I think are the good players, how I view their games. I complain some about the decisions made, but if you look at all my posts I think a very small percentage of them are complaining about the federation as opposed to discussing the actual players in substantive ways.

 

This part I agree with although there is the reality that people will move on if a better job opportunity presents itself.

 

Some thoughts, and I will try to keep them brief, but I am bad at that.

1. I think the whole conversation needs to start with "What is the point of the U15 team? The U17 team? The U20 team? If there's multiple goals and objectives, how do you weight them? Is the goal to: win games? recruit/introduce future senior members to the program? evaluate players? provide a reward and incentive for youth players to aspire to? This is important, but it should dictate roster selection and it's different for different things.
   
2. Now apply that same question to each tournament and each camp. Personally, at the younger age groups, I think we should be spreading the love around a bit -- because for everything but win games in terms of above, it's better to be a little more liberal. If your goal is to win games, the roster should be more compact over camps once you've identified.
   
3. I wholeheartedly agree that it is possible to scout and evaluate players and potential. Where I disagree is that I don't think the hit rate is so high for anyone that it justifies an approach of small player pools or a dead set certainty of bad choices. This isn't a matter of competence; it's a matter of the fact that this stuff is uncertain. We should open to the idea that we're wrong on some of these players
4. To the above, it's also not a bad idea to get many viewpoints because everyone has a bias and everyone (with skill) will be some right and some wrong. And it's also not a bad idea to spread the love around.
   
5. I understand the small sample size concerns with ID camps and tourneys, but it's the rare situation to see players side by side against the same competition. It's like college admissions with standardized testing and GPAs -- the latter is a larger sample, but it's harder to bring context. The former has context but is specialized and doesn't encompass as much as the latter.
6. Last thing. Given the uncertainty and variance in opinions of skilled evaluators in the industry ... I hate, hate, hate that people seem to immediately jump to politics or marketing or nepotism as the first thing a selection simply must be. I think people should be far more open to the idea that someone else evaluates someone for a different reason. This isn't to say it doesn't happen. I'm sure it does. But it seems that a lot of people in general go to this quickly and often as if a choice that that they don't agree with must be driven by something other than evaluation.

 

I agree with this. No need to be harsh on kids. But that said, I do think one can say one player is better than another without being even critical of the latter.

We don't need to say someone doesn't deserve to be there, but rather that you think Player X is better than Player Y.

As my other note says, personally, I don't think that even if that is true, that means every call up needs to be Player X, but that's neither here nor there.

The reality of the situation, though, is, if you are going to cry nepotism, corruption and the worst rosters in the history of the NT ... it's going to be tough to give that credibility without any kind of backup.

 

Btw these issues occur in many other selective fields. My daughter (same one who chose soccer over ballet) is a pretty gifted musician. At the time we were living in the Bay area and there is a hierarchy of youth orchestras there. You start with the Berkeley Youth Orchestra, then move up to Oakland, and at the top of the pyramid is the San Francisco Youth Orchestra.

Kids try out. They get rejected. They get upset. Parents get upset.

But I think that part of the experience is very valuable. Even at 15 or 16, it is not a bad thing to experience failure and rejection, especially when it is coupled with advice on how to get better for next year's audition.

The San Francisco Youth Orchestra goes to great lengths to keep politics out of the process. And it is VERY easy for politics (via parents and music teachers) to seep into the process. One of the kids my daughter faced off against was a student of the first oboist of the San Francisco Orchestra. The guy on the selection committee was the second oboist.

The way they keep politics out is to make the auditions blind. The players are behind a screen. The judges don't know if they are male or female, black, white or Asian, or older or younger. They just hear them play the same piece and decide entirely based upon that.

I realize soccer doesn't lend itself to something like that, but that is the ideal. To put aside all the bullshit and select the player with the greatest potential for these developmental experiences. There are a very limited number of slots when a team goes to a tournament like the one we just saw. They should not be wasted on players with inferior potential.

 

I think there has to be a process for "evaluating the evaluators." Obviously some scouts/coaches will be prone to hyperbole when discussing a player, and the decisionmaker has to factor that in. But you still want to cast a wide net when soliciting opinions about players.