PBP: USA vs. Cuba @ CONCACAF U20 Championship, July 22

Why can't they be like we were, perfect in every way?

 

I was as perfect then as I am now.

 

You aren’t wrong. He’s not even highly rated at Liverpool. He scored a bunch of goals against cooks and cleaners in the U-17 qualifying and then everyone declared him a future star in conjunction with recognizing what his club team is.

Has not really impressed me outside of some good goal scoring tallies in that tournament. Goal scoring at youth levels is important, but sometimes it’s deceiving (especially short tournaments).

 

I think Eyestone has come a long way the last few years. 3-4 years back he was that clumsy very tall keeper who was slow side to side or getting down to either side and his feet were quite bad. He’s made strides in those areas now as he’s grown into his body. Whether he’ll just be known for being big or his actual tools other than size are going to be positives is to be determined.

 

3-4 years ago he was like 15 years old.

EVERY 15-year old is somewhat awkward physically (even moreso mentally).

Even then he wasn't any more awkward than anyone else.

 

Hmm that doesn't allow embedding, hopefully this one does

 

He was awkward because he was so much taller than everyone else he was playing against.
It never looked right when he was playing against kids his own age.

The guy can be so dominant in the air.
I always say he's agile "for his size." I have no idea how that translates to the highest of levels like the Premier League. There aren't a lot of 6'7" keepers for a reason. Heck, there aren't a lot of 6'7" soccer players period.

Last year, the tallest player in the Premier League was Dan Burn of Newcastle. 6'5".

 

I think there are differences though from player to player, even if you're right that they all lack in every area because they are still young and developing. Eyestone was just the big dude a few years back that was pretty bad in other parts of the game.

Now he's shedded that reputation and is respectable enough in other areas. Whether he'll be able to carve out some strengths is where I still need to see further development from him.

 

Eyestone has the potential to reach a good level. People will talk about his feet not being great, but it’s the crosses into his area where he has struggled.

There have been signs of some bravery being added to his game. If he can dominate balls in the air in his area, he has the chance to be a very good goalkeeper. His shot stopping ability has never been in question.

 

The guy was one of the highest rated keepers in the United States during the period you are claiming that struggled.

You guys are trippin. You're so completely out of reasonable context that it puts everything you're saying into question.

 

We had another 6'6" keeper who was pretty good.

I haven't seen him listed at more than 6'6". Where are you getting 6'7"?

 

Hopefully Eyestone is our Thibaut Courtois

Who was that?

 

I don't think we've ever had a top keeper that height.
Most of our top keepers have been in the 6'3" range.

And of our "next generation" of Slonina, Schulte, Brady, Beavers, and company...........they're also that height for the most part.

That's not to say there aren't keepers of that are 6'6"-6'7". They're the exception.

If people want a point of comparison, Eyestone is about Peter Crouch height.

 

Odunze is listed at 6 ft 6 1/2 in. Maybe he's remembering him as "pretty good".

 

I don’t know what to tell you. You are telling me what he was based on some conception of what you think his game should’ve been like.

I am telling you what I thought based on what I watched. If you want to argue that point and say you disagreed from your viewings, that’s a debate that can be had, but I don’t know how there’s a real debate about a conception of what should’ve been so that didn’t align with reality.

 

You framed his youth play as lacking. I keep up with FCD quite a bit and have had this guy on my radar for a long time. What you are saying does not comport with reality. He was never viewed as a prospect who was lacking in any serious way, he has made his way through the top American talent channels and has now exited the US market for England as an 18-19 year old keeper. 18-19 is a keepers’ infancy. He will begin hitting his pro stride in his mid 20’s.

Make no mistake, this is not a poor prospect and really has never been a poor or lacking prospect.

 

What's the matter with kids today?

 

For whatever it’s worth, Eyestone had pretty poor shot stopping numbers at North Texas and at Duke. That’s comparing to other peer GKs. Beaudry was better, Yagudayev was better, Ferree was a little better vs better competition. Even across multiple teams his sample isn’t big enough to be completely confident, but it’s still notable.

Shot stopping is pretty much the most important thing for keepers; too far off the standard and it doesn’t matter what else they can do.

Eyestone has made it a long way on his potential, which is understandable. He is a very fluid athlete for 6’6”. If he puts it all together he could be excellent. It’s just at this stage a fairly significant red flag.

 

You don't know a keeper's pro potential until they're 25.

As for saves and similar statistics...keepers do not perform in a vacuum. Their statistics are reflective of their teammates as well.

I am interested to see Eyestone against top competition. He is the standout of this group so far in my opinion. He's the only guy I could see making a significant pro jump.

 

Post Shot xG, the standard by which GKs are judged, is used because it is directly comparable between GKs. Save percentage and clean sheets are not the standard.

Eyestone appears to be a weak shot stopper.
If he can become an average shot stopper he has some very good attributes, but if he can’t become an average shot stopper he’s not going to make it as a pro.

It’s kind of a moot point in this competition. We’ve allowed what, one half decent shot on target? We may not see a good one until the quarterfinals.

 

Post Shot xG would neglect to capture one of the most important effects of a large keeper like Eyestone, which is their ability to cause players to overcompensate for his size and to hit the ball off frame. We saw one of those in the last game when a player tried to curl a ball around him to the far post and hit the ball off frame. Eyestone made a play on the ball but pulled back to watch it sail out of bounds and collect the goal kick.

 

That’s a new one. Do you have statistical evidence that’s a thing?

Even if it is, I doubt it’s enough to overcome the value lost to letting shots by.

 

You guys are suggesting a new BS metric: Potshot xP.

 

Eyestone has a long way to go.......................................

But hell, its not longer than Matt Turner. Turner played in one game his freshman year at Fairfield University.

GK is different than other positions in terms of developmental timeline.

What I do know is the vast majority of goalkeeper prospects we've sent to England as teens haven't developed.
I don't know why that is, but its reality. We've had NCAA keepers go over like Keller and Hahnemann. We had this series of young keepers at Fulham (for some reason). What have they developed into? Chituru Odunze of Leicester is now in MLSNP. Who was the guy at Chelsea? Oh, Ethan Wady. The list goes on and on. The success rate to even become an MLS-level starter is extremely low.

So Eyestone may or may not develop. And we have about 10 other guys we can say the same thing about.

What I do know is that Eyestone is huge. He'd have been the tallest player to play in the Premier League last season.
And I do worry about his agility to play at the highest of levels.

The tallest goalkeeper to even play in MLS was Hunter Sulte. He played 3 games for Portland in 2021 and is now in the USL.

Who's the best 6'6" or 6'7" keeper in MLS history? There aren't many. Maybe Jon Conway? I don't know.

 

A keeper who is large and or positions himself well/takes good angles would be punished by using that stat because they convert more shots on goal to shots off frame that may otherwise be counted as saves.

You'd have to reclassify the data using new definitions, redefine the sample size, and do some EDA. Included in those new definitions would need to be a sharper set of metrics like xG, but for keepers (call it xS) that analyzes the dimensions of saves.