My take on where all the guys from qualifying stand for the U-20 WC. Some of this is based on what happened in qualifying, and some isn't. Locks: Brady, Neal, Craig, Cuevas, Alvarado, Sullivan, Aaronson Locks: I think almost all of these guys would have been in this category before qualifying. I would've debated Craig between this and the likely category before the tournament (leaning heavily towards lock), but his performances put him squarely in the lock territory. Cuevas could go into likely, but when you consider that on a roster of limited numbers that he plays RB and LB, that helps a lot towards making the team. He's also the main captain, which isn't insignificant. I can't see how he doesn't earn a spot. Aaronson went from between Likely/True Toss-Up to very narrowly a lock. I don't rate him as high as some, but he had a good tournament, and I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt in this situation. You have to place some level of reward on qualification performances. Others were complete locks IMO either way. Likely: Clark, Allen, Cowell You could've argued for Cowell and Clark as locks before the tournament, but after it they certainly aren't. Clark is more likely than Cowell. He also isn't carrying a suspension into the U-20 WC. I think both these guys make it, but they still have work to do. Allen had a very good qualifying campaign. That helped him from true toss-up and put him into the likely category. I know Wiley is very hyped up, but I think Allen is clearly presently better and potentially the better long-term prospect. Even if you say they are neck and neck, it's not like it's any guarantee that Gomez plays for us at the U-20 and Paredes is not a natural LB. There needs to be two of them on the team, so Allen becomes likely IMO. True Toss-up: Halliday, Ferkranus, McGlynn, Edelman, Hopkins Halliday had a very up and down tournament. I'm far from convinced. Let's see other RB's get their try. They may be better options. Ferkranus was pretty solid, but I'm just not sure there was much he could do at qualifying that would put him anything better than in the toss-up category. The good news for him is that he didn't lower his stock. Other CB's need to be tried out. McGlynn held steady in qualifying. Very situational player. May not fit with the players around him. I think it's going to come down to the wire, and depend on who else is part of the team. Edelman is also probably another that comes down to the wire in the midfield. Is there room for a true glue guy type of player? Hopkins could go into the unlikely category, but I think he's a player who has gradually been trending up, and he can play as a #9. Unlikely: Carrera, Pukstas Carrera did his job in qualifying and is a quality GK prospect, but you'd have to think that the numbers game is not favorable towards him. Slonina and Dewsnup are both ahead of him in the pecking order IMO, he's not so far clear of options below him in the pecking order (Borto and others), and then there's the fact that we often take a U-18 GK who can be eligible next cycle as #3. Pukstas also did his job in qualifying, and was unfortunately used out of position and got injured. He didn't hurt his chances and he's a pretty good prospect, but I think he's clearly not a fit as a #6 and we likely have better #8 options. If he's playing regularly in the first division of Croatia this season, he's not out of it, but I'd say it's unlikely. Completely out: Wolff, Tsakiris, Luna Wolff is pretty self-explanatory. Struggled in qualifying. Probably was the worst player on the team going in. He's not a bad prospect, but not US U-20 WC team quality IMO. Tsakiris is too young IMO. Struggled in qualifying. He'll be an option for next cycle. We have better options for this cycle. Luna wasn't bad during qualifying, but I just see the same exact problems as before. Against minnows that stand off you and preferably lack athleticism, he's brilliant. We'll see even less of those at the U-20 WC. He may pan out eventually, but I don't see how I'm convinced he should be on the team in the next 10 months.
Absolutely, I would say my rankings of their play also differs from their average score. I agree about Cuevas, and there are other areas of the data I could also nitpick. Some guys get easier games than others and more minutes than others. It's easier to play from the start against a minnow than come in with 30 minutes left when you are only passing the ball around from side to side. Wolff is someone who suffered in that area. I think he might still be the worst, but probably not by as much as he was. The one area I think it's a good barometer is the difference between how everyone sees the attack compared to the defense. Coming in all we heard was how weak the defense is. They allowed two goals in 7 games. While guys like Aaronson and Sullivan piled up high statistical totals and certainly did well, is that more impressive than what the defenders did? I think in general this is sometimes a problem with analysis in this sport. Guys like Craig and Neal are just not going to get the credit they deserve in proportion to Sullivan and Aaronson.
Differences for me on consensus: I think some of Cuevas struggles were on the left, but he wasn't very good in the final, either. He was inconsistent offensively and defensively, to my mind. People seemed to punish Cowell, Clark and even Sullivan for that, skills-wise, but attackers can be that a lot more than a defender. I think, to @ussoccer97531 's other comment, he's a near lock for the U20 WC because of his talent and versatility (and relative lack of options) but I don't think he played very well at all. He made a lot of errors and a few brilliant plays; but because he's more skill than athleticism he gets weird credit whereas Cowell gets panned. I think we're also overrating the centerbacks here. It's the U20s, so we can't expect ruthless consistency, but our press really reduced the pressure and there were a decent number of errors. I know Neal's supposed to be a good passer overall, but he had a LOT of punishable mistakes, for example. Overall, I think they defended pretty well -- not flawless -- but I think the overall press was so dominant, and so few teams chose to pressure us that we are ignoring a fairly high rate of mistakes. Not bad ... but not 7.5 and 7.6 level of play, IMO. Or perhaps that's adjusting for U20 standards. I'm also not sure how McGlynn is that low on performance. I totally agree there's an athleticism question there -- but I'm not sure how that shows up in a score considering how much his passing dictated the later stages of the tourney.
How many real good scoring chances did we face in 7 games? Is it more than 5? The two goals given up, the penalty that was missed by Costa Rica, Brady had one save off his chest that wasn't too easy and then another against Dominican Republic down to his left. I don't know that there was another shot of note on target that could've resulted in a goal with anything other than terrible goalkeeping. While a big part of it is the press and that we were significant better than the competition, you can't give bad scores for denying the opposition. Were they tested a lot? No, but should they not get grades because Nicaragua and Cuba aren't going to provide big tests? They did their job, and did it about as well as they could. We'll see how it goes against better competition, but I think there's a difference between they weren't tested and they didn't do very well. As for McGlynn, watch his defensive efforts. They are not good. I think these are easily missed, if you aren't watching closely. He doesn't track runs well in recognizing them. He's obviously also physically slow to track them. He forces some passes he shouldn't. He's willing enough defensively, but is still physically weak and loses more duels than he wins. He's a real negative defensively. For all the positive value he gains per game with his possession game and soccer IQ offensively, there's almost never a game where he doesn't also lose some value due to the defensive aspects of the game. Even if its against inferior competition, it's not like there's no defending to do per game.
I'm not going to give bad scores, but a 7.5 implies half the games were an 8. For my book, 8s are really good games. Impactful. I don't start at 10 and countdown. For me, a generic good game -- untested, maybe a small mistake or two -- is probably a 7. I'd say that'd be about the average for these guys. I saw 1-2 really good CB games, and I saw a couple where the distribution and decision making probably deserved a sub-6. But 7.5s are too high. I did watch him pretty tightly. I don't think he was as bad as you say. He forced some passes, but he absolutely also made a ton of line-breakers, and was a big part of the total tone of the team. If we're talking projection, I'm with you ... if we're talking performance, I struggle to understand how he drops that much in the same context you used to support the defense. I also think he was far more impactful offensively than Cuevas and Cuevas has more issues defensively. Again, projection is different, I just think his actual performance was better. These are largely quibbles. I think the only difference is that I am a bit concerned about the CBs at the World Cup because there was very little testing here.
If you want to say I was too generous across the board, fair enough. If you want to say the attackers deserve credit for being good against bad competition but the defenders don't deserve that same credit, I don't agree. The average scores had him in the middle of the roster. If you thought his offensive quality was at the very top, we can just agree to disagree. I thought his offensive qualities in this tournament were above average, but not consistently difference making, and there was a fair amount of lost defensive value.
Both sets of players play on both offense and defense. You're right to say that our offensive players had the ball around them a lot more -- on both offense and defense. But I just don't think the centerbacks were particularly good (or bad). These performances were fine, not great. There's an element of opportunity there, but there's an element of opportunity there for Jackson Hopkins as well. You've noted before that our opponents rarely threatened, so I'm struggling on how much negative defensive value he could have had. I don't think his offensive value was "at the very top" but I thought it was more consistently valuable than Cuevas, for example.
I think we philosophically disagree then. Not seeing CB's is a good thing. Thats a good performance for a CB if you have a boring game. If we aren't seeing them, they are often doing positive things that allow for it. Not only CB's also. The whole defense. The good defensive teams make defending look easy, and it's less about sliding tackles or heroic last ditch headers out of play, and more good communication, squeezing the opponent's space, and being well positioned and ready for the movements of the attackers. Hypothetically, let's say McGlynn's offensive value that we can attach to his performances out of 1 was about a .65 or .7 per game of value added offensively. His defensive value was probably in the negatives. As good as it is to have .65 or .7 offensive value and thats most of what people care about, it's going to hurt performances to constantly have negative defensive value, even if it's only -.10 or -.15. It's hard to be better than middle of the pack on a team, while losing value for the team defensively. Unless you are the key difference maker when your team has the ball or one of them, the lost defensive value is probably going to be enough that you can't be in the top 5-6 of the team. So if hypothetically McGlynn was like the 5th or 6th best offensive threat on the team in this tournament, being a negative defensively (probably among the few worst on the team defensively, if not the absolute worst), makes 5th or 6th offensively turn into 9th or 10th overall.
Have you read what Philly coaches said about McGlynn? They said that he's grown a few inches before the season started and doesn't feel comfortable in a new body yet. See his physical struggle as something temporary.
I saw that quote. I think he said during the pandemic or some language like that. I think McGlynn must’ve grown in late 2019 or early 2020. That’s about when I noticed it also. I don’t know that it takes two years beyond that. I like McGlynn, but I think this is what he is. He’s a below average athlete and below average defensive player. He’s not 16 or 17 years old. He turns 19 in a few days. I would hope he makes small improvements, but I’m not expecting him to become good defensively.
Yes, after Covid brake. Still “McGlynn has a left foot that you can’t teach,” Curtin said. “It’s really special. His passing ability I equate to Haris [Medunjanin]. That’s the best passer I’ve worked with. And Jack is right there. His IQ is up there with [Alejandro] Bedoya, who has played in World Cups and in Europe. He’s worked really hard defensively, but he’s special. He’s still growing, he’s getting stronger.” “Jack is one of our best passers, but we need to work with him athletically,” Tanner said. “He’s a late-bloomer [physically]. When we had the COVID break and we came back, the coaches joked we have a new player because he grew a few inches. Once he gets more physically mature, he’ll be unstoppable.” https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/olym...-the-philadelphia-union-s-next-homegrown-wave
Bribes and payolla are simply an accepted part of business there, as in much of the world. I negotiated a 5 star family vacation as part of a corporate deal. Fortune 500 company. Just the way it is. To be clear. it‘s not a big deal. It‘s common in so many places around the globe. We get offended and upset here, but when you get outside of a certain sphere it‘s just business. In some places you need to hide it, in others not so much, Mine was a total business transaction. No one in the Mex government would thin or care. Why? They were probably at he same resort, with their kids, getting what is sue to them.
I'd swap out the entire backline, to be honest, I wasn't terribly impressed by any of them. Lots of cheap giveaways and blow-bys -- the team mostly succeeded defensively because of the press and some very wayward finishing.
Couldn’t you say the same thing about the attackers? The competition they faced sucked as equally as the competition the defenders faced.
I see what you are saying but since the ball was mostly in the offensive sphere and the other teams were having to play very defensive the offense was challenged more than the defense. For me the defense wasn't bad but I need more data to rate. Of course the offense needs to also be tested against better teams but was good to actually spectacular at times. Some of the one touch at speed stuff is hard for any team to defend no matter how good but we'll see eventually. If they can bring in Okoh(sp?) and get Che released the CD is improves dramatically. If those two are there and only three CD's are brought in which two do you drop or do you consider Che also the backup RB and then four get picked?
I just find this defense struggles stuff to be such nonsense. A few people suggest it, and then it keeps getting repeated. Two of the three fullbacks play regular minutes for MLS teams, and the other is in the reserves for an academy that makes the UCL every season. The CB's haven't played much yet in MLS, but look at the teams they play for. LA Galaxy notoriously favor mediocre veterans over young players, and Philly Union have been dragging their feet with integrating these young players this season. Are Neal and Craig not very highly rated prospects? Why does it matter so much that they don't get regular MLS minutes? We could've taken kids that do get MLS minutes (Williams, Orozco), but they are worse players. I don't get this infatuation with this aspect. For that matter, is Ferkranus a worse prospect than Diego Luna? People aren't going to like this, but I think Ferkranus has a lot more projectable of a skillset that'll translate better. The same could be said about Ferkranus compared to Wolff, and I don't think anyone is going to disagree. What about compared to Hopkins? I think it's close. We also have two very highly rated goalkeepers, so I don't understand this idea that we have a weak defense. End rant.
I think you misunderstood me. I didn't think they struggled. I just didn't see them get challenged enough to really have a deep opinion. The offense I had a bit better opinion just because they were constantly on the ball attacking. Even then they weren't really challenged either. I mean I have an opinion vs CONCACAF but against top teams? I need to see more.
Sorry, I should have been clear. I wasn't saying you are the one thats pushing that idea. I see this topic come up a lot, and this whole discussion is one I think is completely wrong to begin with.
I agree that Tsakiris is out because of his age but I need to point out that he’s a top five overall prospect in this squad. His work rate and skill upside are impressive to me, especially considering his age. I have him #3 behind Alvarado and Neal as a prospect. Ahead of Aaronson and Brady.
Top 8 prospects in this squad- 1. CM Alvarado 2. CB Neal 3. CM Tsakiris 4. AM Aaronson 5. GK Brady 6. RB Cuevas 7. AM Clark 8. CB Craig
I am impressed at how Tsakiris looked like he belonged at his age, but I generally look for differentiation points, and I don't see a ton. Jack of all trades can be very good, but it's more rare. I'm curious what you see in Tsakiris.
I think thats a good point. Tsakiris is a better prospect than a number of guys that are better U-20 WC options, so that should not be forgotten. It's possible in the next 10 months he improves a lot and earns a spot, but I think thats unlikely. I think he's a good prospect, but I don't know that I think he's an absolute top-tier prospect. My worry with him is that his game looks more exciting than the actual tangible value he brings to a team. I find it hard to discern what that is. Is he an excellent dribbler? Is he an excellent tackler? Is he an excellent passer? Does he produce a lot of goals or assists? Is he overly athletic? Is he a #8 or a #10? He does some of everything, but a lot about his game seems to me in that tweener area where there's no real calling card or defined position.