Well technically we have five forwards, as Quincy Amarikwa is still on the team... not that he should ever play over any of those other four.
I read the Urena article today, and I think it shows that he is very confident right now. Were I Leitch, I would start him on Saturday.
If I were the Quakes, I'd be on the phone checking offers for him while he's hot. We should be able to get much better for the price he would command right now.
From other MLS teams? If you mean out to other leagues, San Jose won't see that money, MLS will, so what would be the incentive to sell?
The Quakes would get to keep a hefty slice of that money. New rules. I hope that we keep him, because I think he's really good. I want to see Hoesen and Marco up top, bringing on Wondo late for one of them. Go Quakes!! Stay Crew!! - Mark
Looking back at that article in light of the USMNT failure to qualify, there is more possible rationale to that failure other than "we don't have any talent anymore". MLS is a double-edged sword. It is a better league, so it makes the domestic MLS player better, but it is also helping the other CONCACAF teams, especially the Central American teams. It is really not "the U.S. should qualify easily every time" anymore and "the sky is falling" (because we didn't qualify this year). Some relevant quotes: "You don't know what to expect in CONCACAF," said Trinidad & Tobago midfielder Kevin Molino, who plays for Minnesota United. "The bridge has been closing so fast. These teams are very close, and it's good to see a lot of players in CONCACAF playing in the league and growing. "Look at how close the Gold Cup was. Jamaica were second-time finalists. You look at some of the games and Mexico is struggling to beat any team now in CONCACAF, and years ago Mexico would roll over any team. MLS has helped the whole CONCACAF, all of the teams, a lot." "You play a whole year against Altidore, Bradley, for example, and Dempsey," Urena told Goal. "You play against good players and sometimes you beat them. You see that wall sometimes against these players, and when you win against them you say, 'I can do it.' "You take away [the thought] in your mind that you can't do it. It helps a lot for the national team, for sure."
See, this is what happens when you don't stay with it in terms of the ever changing rules. Given that San Jose has been absent from the playoffs for so long, imagine my surprise when I learned of this ridiculous format...
I think people who jump on the lack of talented American players train aren't really paying attention to the drastically changing landscape of world soccer. MLS has definitely helped make better American players, but as you've pointed out and many others have as well, the entire region is better, in part, because of it. Canada is better, the Central American nations are better. Yes, it's unfortunate that the US didn't qualify, but now if they don't qualify, it's obvious they didn't deserve to go, and had they gone, they probably would have been used to wipe the floor with by other teams, exactly the same as what happened the last time Arena took the team to the World Cup. A better Concacaf eventually means a better United States, too, there are just times when the other teams will leapfrog your progress a bit. Granted, I'm less and less interested in national team soccer these days as it is. It's been diminishing in entertainment quality since at least 2010 when we got to witness one of the most boring World Cup finals imaginable.
Yeah, that's the flip side of it being harder to qualify. If the competition is tougher, the team will be better also (if they qualify). If we can use the "competition makes you better" argument to say that American players should play abroad to challenge themselves with more competition, we can use that same argument for CONCACAF. If it becomes a tougher region, the teams will be better / more battle tested. Speaking of the talent pool, I watched the U20's pretty closely when TT was on the team and they played in the U20 WC in New Zealand. There were a lot of promising players on that team. I wonder why they are not getting called in. Maybe they will now. Arriola was on that team, and he didn't even play much because there were guys who were better (his touch was a bit wooden back then). There was also Hyndman's son (who plays in England I believe), Zelalem, Rubio Rubin, and some good defenders, one of whom was Matt Miazga. I think Kellyn Acosta was also on that team IIRC, and again, not even one of the best players. That team went to the round of 8 I think - they did pretty well.
One would hope we'd see a whole crop of new players enter into the mix after this. There would be little to no point in trotting out a lot of the guys who are nearing the end of their careers and who will be unlikely to be around for the next World Cup. That's how I view it, anyway. I would think guys like Howard and Dempsey would start being called in a lot less frequently, but the US sure does like to try to pad stats for aging players, so we might be in for a pretty rough ride for a little bit before US Soccer actually decided who its next coach is going to be.
Not sure how this thread became conflated with the "USMNT failure naval contemplation" thread, but back on point: I agree with this. I think any decisions we make here are contingent on: Our ability to negotiate a reasonable contract with FC Groningen and Hoesen. The crop of other forwards available on the market this fall and winter If we can retain the services of Hoesen for next season and no clearly superior forwards are avaiable (I think both are probably more than less likely) I see no reason not to keep Urena. He's 27, so should be useful for at least three more years and - similar to Wondo - seems to have an engine that won't quit. His ability to keep going at a high work rate helps create opportunities that aren't always recognized because they will often fall to other attackers while he's occupying defenders. Unless there are CLEARLY superior attackers available on the market, we'd be nuts to trade him.
My problem with the guy is...he doesn't seem to put the ball in the back of the net very often. Kind of a critical requirement for a forward. And if you could say that instead of scoring he sets up his teammates, I'd listen to that argument, but there doesn't seem to be much of a case to make for that either.
He wasn't bad in terms of goal productivity on balance. 5 goals in 1700 minutes that projects to a little over 8g on full season starter minutes. That said he did go for kind of a long spell earlier in the season, and although Hoesen wound up with about the same strike rate, I think he's a little better than Urena overall.
It wasn't a dry spell where he couldn't find openings. He just muffed 5 or more consecutive good opportunities over several games. I remember thinking "man, you have got to put one of them in the net".
Could be. I'd actually rather have that kind of dry spell over one where you're just not creating any chances. Guys go thru cold spells with their finishing. Unfortunately he got hot during international break and it hasn't carried over all that much though he hasn't had a lot of chances to play. But if you're not even creating or getting involved with chances that's real bad. It's basically hopeless.
Quakes weren't ever going to play more than two forwards, Hoesen was in good form in the #9 role... meant Ureña landed on the bench. Personally I do think he had some big misses and that made a difference on the negative side. Early in the season I thought he was great, though. Hey, who would ever imagine we would have some attacking depth and have a hard time getting all the good offensive players on the field at the same time?!