Agree about the strikers. We don't have depth yet but there are some good prospects coming up and if U20 keepers are being mentioned then U20 forwards should too. Pepi, Soto, AOC and several dual nats whose names I always have trouble with. It's up to them to score enough for the US that I remember and can spell their names.
Who knows? McBride didn't score for the USMNT until he was 25. He was 23/24 before he even played in MLS, and had done little in the 2. Bundesliga the year before. Development is not linear, and Sargent isn't as good as peak McBride yet. But he's got over half a decade to get there. At this point McBride was at SLU, and still two years from heading to Wolfsburg for an unsuccessful stint. He went back to Europe in his thirties. A slightly different career path. He has a strong USMNT record, especially since he played in a ton of WCQ / WC games relative to friendlies and did pretty well. But it's worth noting that that at Fulham, where he's beloved, yes, he scored a goal every 265 minutes, and even his first couple of years, where he was best, was a goal every 200 minutes. Josh is worse, but not that far, and he's got more assists. And he's 20. Again, it's always a safe bet to say someone won't pan out, but he's just so young and I don't think people realize how young he is. He's got time.
We're not giving up on Josh. I think folks just are a little bit concerned that we have all of our eggs in the Josh Sargent basket. People can list other "prospects" they hope will hit, but those are also only prospects. Ricardo Pepi? How about Afonso Ocampo-Chavez scores a single MLS goal before we proclaim his as anything. How about Sebastian Soto scores a goal. He never scored for Hannover II much less the first team. Sarget isn't a 16 year old prospect. He's 20. He scored 4 goals this season in the Bundesliga, all against bad teams. And he got substantial minutes. We're all hopeful that he kicks it up a notch and becomes the USMNT's #9 for a decade. But we're all sorta putting the cart before the horse. He has to go out and prove it first.
The biggest weakness of the squad right now is the manager. However if we're looking just at the players, depth across the pitch is the biggest issue, with #9 and CB arguably the thinnest. I would add GK too. It's kind of nice it isn't LB for a change (separate discussion: would you rather have Dest on Puli's side to allow them to combine, or would you rather have Dest at RB to balance the field and put him in his primary position?). I think at the #9 Weah if healthy is our second best (or arguably best) option, but he's also probably our best RW option as well and would prefer him there to allow him and Sargent to play together. There is a pretty significant drop off after Sargent and Weah, which makes it even more perplexing that Berlhalter left Sargent off the GC squad last summer. CB is pretty much Brooks and a ? Brooks is a lock starter for me if healthy. I think Miazga should be the other starter right now - he's a superior passer to Long with similar defensive performance from what I have seen. I think Miazga is capable of playing at a higher level than the Championship. Long term we are all praying Richards makes the leap - he has the highest ceiling of our young CB's, maybe not BM level but CL level imo. I still like CCV and think his ceiling is in line with Miazga's - starter in a top 4 league at a mid-table club. He's a little younger than Miazga so has some time to get there. EPB is still young but needs to show more - I thought his level was in line with Miazga and CCV but am having doubts. Robinson I haven't seen enough of, but he needs to make the leap abroad to be able to judge better. Other less significant issues are at RW (is Morris really the best option besides Weah) and midfield beyond Adams and McKennie. Really though after Pulisic, Dest, Reyna, Sargent, Adams, McKennie, Brooks, Steffen and Weah when healthy there are either question marks or large dropoffs. If we want to eclipse what the 2002 team did we really can't afford to lose more than 1 or 2 of those guys for 2022.
This just reads as a bunch of completely unfounded cliches. If you are concerned that we are putting all our eggs in the Sargent basket, perhaps the focus should be on some of those other strikers rather than weirdly dogging Sargent for things he doesn't need to be dogged for? I have little hope for anyone out there sans Pepi right now, but that fact doesn't change anything about Sargent's actual play. I missed what you think anyone is proclaiming. Especially about AOC. I've pointed this out in the Llanez thread and several times for Sargent. 20 isn't old. Pulisic and Reyna have spoiled people. There aren't that many 20 year olds tearing up the Bundesliga. The players that do tend to be players that don't have to worry about competing with Gyazi Zardes. Much like in international play, please provide context for all these 20 year old scorers who did all their damage against Bayern Munich. This context-less argument is just easy pickings, when every player performs better against worse teams, because, you know, they are worse. Can you direct me to a quote where someone has proclaimed that he is our #9 for the next decade? What does this even mean? If a player is our best option, he should play. Whether it's 17 year old Reyna or whomever, best player plays. There's some element of risk adjustment, but don't we know who Sargent is right now, even if we don't know who he will be? If you think he needs to prove it, what does he need to do to get a spot on the USMNT? And what happens if no player has proven it?
I think it is a different discussion whether Josh should start for the US and whether Josh has holes in his game. I personally think both are true, but I will absolutely be interested to see what happens when Weah gets healthy and see if he plays up top or on the wing as he's done both. If nothing else, some competition from someone under 30 would be nice.
This is more than a little unfair to Soto, he was tearing it up last season, got 3 Bundesliga appearances and everyone was rightfully expecting him to break through at Hannover this season. Things obviously fell of the rails between he and the coach, but to write him off at this point is crazy. When he arrived at the U19's he got 24 games and had 17 goals and 6 assists. I bring this up because as has been pointed out to you already, literally everyone on our radar right now is well ahead of Brian McBride's career at a similar age. I do think this Golden Generation talk is very premature, like comparing it to the '02 team. We are a garbage team right now coming off of our worst cycle ever and have maybe half a good team of young dudes and no depth yet. If we are predicting a Golden Generation type team by 2026, then yeah, looks likely.
Yeah the golden generation by 2026 will be more or less a golden generation but by 2022 it probably won't happen but if it does, then in that case it would still be too early to call them that.
If Pulisic were to get injured and miss some of the Hex, I doubt we qualify. That's how great the current squad is. While I like Sargent it's a lot to ask him to be our CF and qualify for the WC. At this point. McKennie/Adams/Dest, the Hex will be their first go around. Our backline and GK is our major weakness. Next up is the lack of any proven mids after Adams/McKennie. Our wing depth is also poor. Dempsey was our 2nd best player last Hex and I don't see anyone replacing what he brought. And Wood has completely disappeared. We might be less lethal in front of goal and be worse defensively than in 2018. What a great combo. I simply do not see our answer to Pulisic getting surrounded and hacked down. That's the playbook on us. Get rough with Puli and surround him, the refs swallow their whistles and the opponent dares others to step up and beat them. And I love Reyna but he doesn't have a pro goal to his name as of yet.
I've noticed CP has cut down on the whole routine of pleading to the ref in disgust after a contact play so that might bode well for him being ready to adapt to the physicality of CONCACAF qualifying. And even if he misses a couple of games my bet is we still go through in a relatively comfortable manner. I might be skeptical of "next level" success, but I like this group as far as getting back to the pre-2017 idea of normalcy.
England is good for toughening up guys who always run to the ref. Now consider this: ----------------------------Steffen------------------------- -------------------Miazga-------Brooks------------------ ----------------------------Adams-------------------------- ------------------McKennie--------------------Robinson Dest---------------------Reyna--------------------------- ----------Morris-----------------------Pulisic------------- ----------------------Sargent------------------------------- Beyond the lack of bite by the striker, do you see the problem in the central defense? If Adams is not 100%, a single dribbler can go all the way inside the net with the ball. Think Vela & his goal against the Quakes.
This thread's premise is flawed in a couple ways. First - World Cup results are too fluky to be used as a meaningful benchmark for a national team's level of play and overall accomplishment. The 2002 team made the quarterfinals, but came perilously close to crashing out of qualification in the semis. We finished one point ahead of Guatemala, and if Guatemala had bagged a quick goal after Eddie Lewis' red card in RFK, people would probably consider that cycle's team the worst in modern US history. If you make the semifinals of the World Cup, that's a clear indication that your team is pretty great. If you take zero or one points with a lousy goal differential from your World Cup group, you're probably a bad team. But in between, there's a lot of room for randomness. I don't think Costa Rica was actually a stronger team than Italy, England, and Uruguay in 2014. As for the exploits of the current generation - in terms of World Cup results specifically, it's pointless to predict, because of the above mentioned randomness along with the tiny number of World Cup games per decade. The Czech Republic's Golden Generation didn't even qualify for the World Cup until they were mostly on their last legs. That was still a Golden Generation, though. Ours is as well, regardless of what happens at the next couple World Cups.
Nah, we're past that now. I can't be bothered to try to look it up, but I doubt there are any teams in recent history that had four players with the u21 career accomplishments of Pulisic, McKennie, Adams and Dest, and that weren't subsequently a top international team when those same players reached their prime. And the drop-off in potential after the top few US prospects doesn't seem precipitous. What they'll do in the World Cup is uncertain, because any generation only gets a few cracks at that. Argentina didn't make it past the World Cup quarters between 1990 and 2014, despite churning out many great players during those decades. But it's a very safe bet that the current crop of US players will elevate the national team to a competitive level far beyond anything we've seen so far; any other outcome would be really surprising.
But, worth mentioning that in the general soccer world it seems like young players look more prepared for top flight soccer than ever. We are improving but, the rest of the World is not slowing down either.
When have we ever had this many players who have earned a rotational spot for UCL KO teams? Pulisic Adams Reyna Dest just missed due to Pulisic's Chelsea but I think they're roughly at that level. Just below this level, we have Weston, Brooks and Steffen, who don't appear to have the same ceiling as those listed above but are roughly equal to the best of the USMNT historically. Our RIGHT NOW ceiling is higher than it's ever been and if we had a coach who could augment the strengths of these players and mitigate their developmental areas with a supporting cast, we'd be in good shape. Our coach is of course not building around the talent available but rather a series of average MLS midfielders.
We have to keep in mind that the game keeps evolving. The physicality of the players of today would seem superhuman compared to that of players in the 60s. Tactics have evolved constantly too. Anyone watch games from England '66? They look like slo-mo affairs to us, with defenders each playing his own game. The lack of awareness of where other players are is astounding. I'm convinced Legendary Players from the 60s and before would have a very hard time keeping up with the modern game, due to the evolution in the physical aspect and tactics. So when we compare a modern team, like our current NT, to teams from the past, like the NT in Korea/Japan '02, we have to keep that in mind. Not just we move forward: everybody else does, the game itself does. Having more players in top teams is only a minute part of the equation. We have to take into account: 1. Balance -- it's useless if most of our best players play similar positions, you want to have at the very least a top defender, a top central midfielder, a top creative midfielder, a top striker and a top keeper. We have an issue with most of our good/decent guys being in midfield. 2. Adaptability -- or 'soccer IQ' is you wish. Translating good club form into good NT form requires a fast learner. In a club, you have many hours to learn about your mates: how they move, that they usually do, where they go, what are their strengths and weaknesses. Not so in a NT setting, where you have to 'get them' in a few hours. 3. Compatibility -- teams have styles, and players need to fit that style too. If you have a team focused on counters, a guy who tries to play tiki-taka will only slow things down and would become a problem. 4. Leadership -- the coach cannot predict all possible variations presented by the rival. You need guys able to counter any changes in-game, thinking on their feet, and able to make others follow them in their solutions to such changes. Beyond smarts, that also requires character and being respected by your mates, and it's a reason why teams made of young players seem to lose their head when they meet a rival that is not playing according to expectation. You cannot judge your own team in a vacuum, either. If all you do is watch your own players, you have no idea where the rest of the world is standing. I'm following fascinated what Bielsa is doing with Leeds right now because I see in it the seeds of a style that will come to fruition in a decade or so. The problem is the physical demands of it, and I think he may still fail due to his players getting exhausted (the break helped him, IMO). Bielsa's experiment, which is being studied everywhere as I type, is all about constant movement and positional fluidity. It requires the players to run for 90 minutes, too: you're never static, you're constantly shifting, making runs. etc. Each time a ball is sent forward there are 3+ possibilities being created. More than Total Football, it reminds me of modern dance: several 'stories' happening at the same time, and each player focused enough to follow them. It's a style that demands an impossible amount of stamina and focus, but I can see teams developing that in the future. In short, it's not enough to focus on what our players can do right now, one also has to keep an eye on the rivals and on the new developments in the sport. Saying we're "going to qualify" in a vacuum of information about the other teams is foolish.
Concerning Bielsa, you can see the fruits of staying sticking with it with Chile. He started the Chilean revolution that was continued by Sampaoli. They were IMHO a top 5 team in the world for about 4 years running. If not for meeting Brazil in R16 in both 2010 and 2014, they could have gone very deep in the WCs. They also won back to back Copa Americas. They have not been the same since Sampaoli left. Also it helped to have in prime Alexi Sanchez and Arturo Vidal.
I've never agreed with that line of thought - in any sport (and that argument is made in every sport). To me, that's only true if you pick up that player and time transport him to the future. But in reality, if those 60's players were playing in today's game, the modern training elements and tactics would be available to them, and they would have been playing/using them all their lives - that's really the comparison you need to make - at least in general. For that reason, I think many would still be great players. There would probably only a few - whose skills maybe relied on a certain style - who might not be as good. Though using that logic, there may be some only OK-good players from the 60's who could benefit from the style of the game in different eras.
My biggest issue with most of the arguments in this thread is the premise of this thread title - who says that the coming "golden generation" is just a generation rather than a lifting tide? There are essays all over this website about why the infrastructure and prospects are only getting better and better. I think it'd be hard to argue that the national team won't be better in 2036 than in 2026 because of how much the academies and interest in the sport itself will grow as a result of MLS/EPL on TV/FIFA/etc. Top end talent is unpredictable so it's possible we don't get a Pulisic/Reyna for a while but there will only be more and more Adams/McKennie/Sargents in the coming years. For that reason I don't quite agree with the idea of a generation at all.
It should be fairly obvious from my post that I refer to dropping them here as already formed, mature players, since I'm using the videos of them playing at their peak for the comparison.
I think if that squad (plus some of the other young guys) gets to have the 2022 experience, I am reasonably hopeful for a really good 2026 cup. If we don’t qualify, or if older and lesser players dominate the 2022 squad, I’d see it as a failure by the USSF.