What's your take on USMNT preference for MLS?

Discussion in 'USA Men' started by DHC1, Apr 15, 2019.

?

What's your take on USMNT preference for MLS?

  1. There's absolutely no preference

    20 vote(s)
    19.6%
  2. There's a preference - it's deserved because they fit better with the system

    1 vote(s)
    1.0%
  3. There's a preference - it's deserved because they're better players

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Way too early to say if there's a preference

    8 vote(s)
    7.8%
  5. Not ready to indict but early signs are ominous that there's an MLS bias

    20 vote(s)
    19.6%
  6. It's obviously a bias and it's bad for the USMNT

    53 vote(s)
    52.0%
  1. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    #626 DHC1, Dec 6, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
    I think you to to great lengths to avoid criticizing Berhalter (which is your right of course) but I'd like to get a bit more than "I don't know".

    1. Do you think that it's reasonable for our coach to actively manage non-MLS players to a highly consistent 8 or so spots in each camp all year long, now that you have looked at the non-MLS players listed above?
    2. Do you think that it's reasonable for our coach to actively manage MLS players to about 50% of the minutes all year long, now that you have looked at the non-MLS players listed above?
    3. Are you optimistic about the program under Berhalter/Stewart now that it's been a year?

    I've been a strong supporter of every single USMNT coach's first term (I'm against a second term in every instance FWIW) and was even supportive of Bruce's second term before he showed his MLS / divisive rhetoric was actually how he managed. It's so disheartening to me to see it repeated here (without the rhetoric, just the action).
     
  2. RalleeMonkey

    RalleeMonkey Member+

    Aug 30, 2004
    here
    Thank you. I didn't follow the U-20's until the WC.
     
  3. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    on mendez and richards my thoughts are premised on we experiment and they are tested for 30 minutes and are either up to the job or not. but based on U20s i thought they showed unique promise. now if they show up and can't play, back to the pool you go. i just think they deserve a shot.

    i also think with how old the last team got, and with so many holes to fill, traditional notions of the usefulness of young players do not apply. most of the best players on this team right now are in the neighborhood of 20. some are no longer thought of as YNT because they have been here a few years eg Pulisic. but the center of gravity of this team is moving that direction.

    also, counter-point, the reality is only a modest list of O-23s who could contribute have been overlooked. and almost without fail if we are moaning about an incumbent they aren't a 20 year old. there was something wrong with the development for several years. the incoming U20s do not face your usual crowd of mid-career stars we generally have. there is a different definition of "good enough" or "better than what we have" right now. some of the "but he's a kid" responses don't seem to grasp the level of the incumbent trash. i don't have to "graduate college" and be fully matured, i just have to be better than some of those schlubs. that is not as high of a bar as is often implied, nor does evaluating the kids as islands independent of how they compare to someone make soccer sense.

    i do think over time the bar will iteratively raise. players like long and yueill and morales and mckennie may face a different situation after 2-3 more U20 classes churn through. some people, including some big names, may find harder sledding when they have serious competition and not just a gaping roster hole to fill.

    so many of the arguments i hear about players are just talking points. well, does zardes do that any better? is my thought process. answer is usually no.
     
    RalleeMonkey repped this.
  4. TheHoustonHoyaFan

    Oct 14, 2011
    Houston
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #629 TheHoustonHoyaFan, Dec 6, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
    Consistently hanging with a top 10 team is much too high a definition. Only the top 10 teams would ever be considered "International Level".

    We were ranked #31 at Copa 100, We beat #13 Ecuador. Results:

    L0-2 v #3 Colombia
    W4-0 v #21 Costa Rica
    W1-0 v #44 Paraguay. Yedlin ejected at 48
    W2-1 v #13 Ecuador. Jones bogus ejected at 52
    L0-4 v #1 Argentina. Jones, Bedoya, Wood suspended
    L0-1 v #3 Colombia. Johnson and Brooks out injured.

    If your definition of international level is able to compete v Mexico, at HEX2014 we took 4 of 6 points against Mexico:

    T0-0 at Azteca:
    Altidore
    Gomez Dempsey Zusi
    Edu Bradley
    Beasley Besler Gonzo Cameron
    Guzan
    W2-0 at Columbus
    EJ
    Donovan Dempsey Bedoya
    Jones Beckerman
    Beasley Goodson Gonzo Johnson
    Howard
    Note we got results against Mexico with Beasley, Dempsey, and Gonzo the only common starters in the two matches! Which of those 19 players do you believe were not international level?

    Again, we have a pool of players with one or two attributes necessary to be effective against top 20 teams. We just need a coach to identify and implement a cohesive style that suits the attributes that our pool possesses; Pace,quickness, work-rate, mentality.
     
  5. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    You are free to use whatever definition you want. To me, you are discussing World Class and not International Quality. Wales has two World Class players, and some with International Quality and many that are not. We have possibly two players that could be World Class in three years or less, but none at the moment. Maybe Pulisic like he is playing now. But he has to do it for awhile longer.

    Donovan, Dempsey, Bedoya, Jones, Beckerman, Johnson, Beasley, Howard, Cameron, Guzan, Bradley were all IQ. No doubt. None of them were really World Class; none were the best players for clubs in the UCL knock-out rounds.

    Like I said, you seem to be equating IQ with World Class. I don't think the USA has ever had a world class player, or a player that showed it at least at the club level.
     
  6. TheHoustonHoyaFan

    Oct 14, 2011
    Houston
    Club:
    FC Schalke 04
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    YI am not following you.. Here was my definition, it has zero to do with World Class. In fact you said my bar was too low!

    If you don't have any individual attribute that can be concerning to a HEX-top-4 and above opponent you don't belong on the USMNT.

    You seem to be trying to suggest that we don't have a 3+ deep pool of international quality players in order to excuse the stupidity of GB's player selection. That is just absurd.

    The pool is as deep as it has been in the last 3 cycles even if we don't have the mature 3+ players that would make a FIFA WC top 50 list (Jones, Dempsey, and Howard made it in 2014).

    We have the pool, Berhalter is just not selecting the right individual pieces within a proper scheme to maximize our pool. His MLS bias is one factor in his poor decision-making.
     
  7. Suyuntuy

    Suyuntuy Member+

    Jul 16, 2007
    Vancouver, Canada
    Not all World Class players are the same. Some of them are ready to play on a cow pasture. Some of them will feign an injury to avoid missing a good Easter shopping spree.
     
  8. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    the USA has at times ranked as high as #4. has made a world cup quarter. made back to back rounds of 16 which i cared about more than precisely where they ranked.

    the "hanging with the top 10" or similar notions tend to almost ignore that ever happened before.

    the arguments also tend to pretend the teams in that club don't change. by definition we were there for a period and then not. even some of the seeming big names slide in and out, and at times perform worse than we do.

    for example, france alternates winning it all with losing every game in group. colombia tends to rotate periods of quality with decades of missing out every cycle. the one time we met in a world cup, guess who won? kind of like england is often about as good as we are in tournaments -- with spurts of excellence -- and the one time in recent history we played at the tournament, we tied.

    so in reality it shuffles some like the hex. if we are in the xeroxing business we might pay attention to who the regulars are -- who wins the world cup more so -- and less to teams that shuffle in and out. if we're properly building a pedestal and then trying to learn from the teams we put on it. cause i get no end of chuckles we are xeroxing a dutch team that failed to qualify for the same tournament we missed.

    this sounds to me kind of like the "team" version of evaluating players by are they in the champs league or not. crude and somewhat skewed from reality. i'd rather know who did what last world cup, and the one before that, and before that.

    i kind of feel like we are a little too much into the rankings and winning friendlies and where people play club, secondary bs, and a little unfocused on actual team building, coaching, talent eval, performances, earned wisdom about how a winning team actually gets done.

    you do the hard work first, the important wins and trophies and ranks and such spit out the other end of the machine. you use these shortcuts you don't understand, and backpat yourself for pseudo-success like fifa rankings, you won't actually get the big picture accomplished. we have confused the image of trying to be a better team with the work that actually does it.
     
    Ghost repped this.
  9. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    the world class players argument is kind of out of touch. i grant that drives success. but i think some fans ignore it isn't happening by magic. or by formation. or by signing abroad for a big name. the big name team is not signing you unless you already radiate something. how did that happen? if you want more people at big clubs bottle that.

    no, that follows a pre-existing development process that either produces those players or not. for a period it didn't. the team sucked. that development failure then creates the field problem. half bright folks then say, well, we suck because we don't have world class players. no. you skipped a step. we suck because for 5-10 years there were no new landons, because we failed to develop them. since we had previously done that, something happened. someone with a job screwed up for a while.

    i actually see the world turning right now back to where we have elite players. it's not an immediate process. a moron can say, well, not enough. you mean right now. give it 3-5 years and we will have several. you can see it in the U20s and U17s. it's a lame argument when you can see the wave coming to the shore and just have to wait to stand up on it. or it's presentist bs.

    if you want to actually explain why we win or suck figure out WHY IT CHANGED. cause just telling me teams can rise and fall on talent is actually banal when stripped of the pomp of describing it as "you have a good team when you have world class players." you mean my team can win state when it has the players to win state? this verges on circular. i get it but it's basically just tracking batting averages and telling me if i have a team that can hit. why not tell me instead how to come up with hitters?

    giving one hint: we handed development over to mls academies. there have been limited successes but i question whether they have the snap to do the job they got handed. my houston dynamo haven't produced a capped player in years, and the servanias and cappis fled like refugees. and i am relying now on 20+ teams like this to produce my NT. and clearing bradenton where i could control how they turn out, out of their way.
     
  10. Mahtzo1

    Mahtzo1 Member+

    Jan 15, 2007
    So Cal
    I think sometimes you assume too much. I don't know means I don't know,
    I can think of reasons to get rid of Bradley. I can't think of too many that justify keeping him.

    for Bradley abd most of the other questions you posed earlier I think it boils down to several possibilities, some of wich could be 1. He is incompetent. 2. he has a plan (which may or may not be a good one) 3. He could be part of some dastardly plan to undermine US soccer (I highly doubt that) and probably several others that I am not thinking of.

    You asked "Why" I think he is doing what he is doing. I have no idea. If you had asked what I think he shoud be doing differently I would have answered that. (The other think is that sometimes during the day I have a limited amount of time to answer)

    I definitely believe he is making errors but at this time I have no idea why he is making those errors and all I can do is hope that I am wrong.

    From your questions today, you are asking more of what I think about it. I will try to answer to the best of my ability.

    1. I don't believe he has a quota on European spots. Looking at your list of the starting 11 and the second 11, for example, I see a very large dropoff in talent AND experience,.There are a few notable exclusions (Morales...others?) that have been playing well at a high level and until recently have been ignored but other than that who do we have? Adams, Pulisic, Brooks, McKennie, Steffan, and possibly to a lesser extent Dest all seem to be considered consensus no brainers. When not injured they all have been used (Remember, even Puisci was eased into the first team by Klinsmann). Yedlin was injured but upon return instantly became the first choice (even though IMO he is not clearly superior to Cannon....each have their strengths and weaknesses). Obviously Ream is less than most people's first choice but obviously Berhalter sees something in him he likes. If Berhalter were truly biased against MLS it would make sense that ALL personnel choices that are even or close to even would go to MLS and only a clear edge in quality would lead to European player getting the edge. We would have Pulisic but no Ream.

    All that being said, do I think that a guy like Holmes (and some others) should have gotten a shot? Yes. I think Berhalter had that in mind when he was on the GC roster (if I'm not mistaken) before injury. Has he scratched him off his list? I doubt it but at the same time I really don't know. Boyd is one that got a shot...guy doing well in a lower league (definitely not top 4) should sound familiar because we have very few in the top four leagues but quite a few in lower leagues that are a little better or worse than MLS. Should Boyd's mediocre performance reflect on Holmes? of course not...I'm not saying it should. I do think When given the opportunity (he has had a few) Berhalter should have tried a few others. It is also extremely important to note that there are MLS players that haven't gotten a chance either. What bias is that? One other thing to consider is that I think it is fair to say that Europe definitely has all or almost all of the cream of our team right now but when you go to that second or third tier of player MLS probably has quite a few more players than are in Europe (I haven't counted).

    2. I think I answered #2 in the above as well. I don't agree that he is making his decisions on the basis of a quota. If Brooks, Yedlin, Adams were not injured the majority of games and if Pulisic and Steffan didn't miss a game or two due to injuries that 50% would look much much different. If you assume they get full minutes, now we are talking approximately 80% Euro and 20% MLS. (Cannon wouldn't have even gotten a chance in the GC). Of course if you are including camp cupcake games...I assume you aren't, the MLS minutes would be somewhat higher than 20%.

    3. Optimistic? Not sure. I am hopeful. I hope he is the type to learn from his errors and I hope that the improvement in the player pool that I expect/hope to see over the next 1-2 years makes a big difference. I have seen glimpses of potential here and there but we need more than a teasing glimpse.
     
  11. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    Thank you for answering the question.

    At the end, you don't believe that he's managing to a quota despite there being a very very consistent 8 or so slots coming from outside of MLS in every single camp this year. I'm not sure if you using quota as a hard value or a general range but I'm using it as the latter.

    It appears that you see a depth list where after the clearly obvious major league players (of which you listed six, while excluding Steffen starting teammate Morales), you think that the rest (there are a number far in excess of the 2-4 remainder, depending on injuries to the aforementioned list, to get to eight) all while we repeatedly call in sub-par players from MLS who also are clearly part of the large drop off in talent and experience. I'm flummoxed how one can not raise an eyebrow when players like Holmes and Miazga get excluded with regularity despite showing decently well for club and country.

    I fundamentally disagree with the concept that if someone was biased all of their decision reflect that bias. One of the first things an anti-Semite says is that "some of my best friends are Jewish" as if that absolves them from saying/thinking/doing terrible things.

    He's favoring MLS to a strong degree where the appropriate range for MLS participation IMO is somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3 but he's always at 2/3. This is remarkably similar to what Arena stated as coach was the pool construction and I think its pretty clear that Bruce was MLS biased by both word and deed.

    I am excluding Cupcake and while I personally don't think that adding Pulisic, Steffen and Adams would necessarily increase the minutes given to non-MLS players, it's besides the point: when the obvious players are excluded because they're (well) obvious, it sure seems like there's a huge bias to get MLS on the pitch.
     
    Patrick167 repped this.
  12. Mahtzo1

    Mahtzo1 Member+

    Jan 15, 2007
    So Cal
    Just to be clear. I ommitted Morales from that flist for the exact same reason that I ommitted Yedlin from the list. I don't see Morales to be in the same tier as Pulisic, McKennie, Steffan, Brooks, Dest and Adams. While he is playing in a top league, I do think he is less of a "lock". Similarly, I don't see Yedlin as a clear "lock".

    FWIW, a few of the things that I believe should have been done differently include:

    Berhalter should have cast a wider net. That includes giving a look to guys like Holmes, Green, Sargent should have been on the GC roster, possibly Williams and others.

    Certain players have been kept for too long...I believe because they fit a role, not because of MLS bias. (somewhat like Robbie Findley playing the role of a speed guy to replace Davies in 2010 rather than being the next best player.) Trapp, and Bradley fit this mold to me. Possibly others too. (can't say, for example, if a guy like Baird fits a role that Berhalter likes or is just an example of poor talent evaluation).

    I strongly believe that our team will be very young and he should limit his search should reflect this. I think there are very few 28 year old players that will should be on our team in 2 years....for that reason I think the search should be mostly 28 and younger. Guys like Long and Morales are at the upper limit on hte age spectrum IMO. While I am not convinced that a guy like Sargent, for example, is better than Altidore, I do believe he would have been a good addition to the GC team.

    Of course the flip side of a youth movement is that I also strongly believe young players are more vulnerable to injury because they are not fully developed physically and also because, due to their growth, they require more recovery time and are far more vulnerable to overuse. A guy like McKennie, Adams or Dest (if playing regularly with their first team) probably gains very little and runs the risk of losing a great deal by playing with the USMNT. Of course the USMNT also loses if the trans atlantic flights plus international games plus club games harm the career of the player. The only point is that incorporating young players isn't as simple as it seems at first glance. (I am not saying that any of my ramblings have had an impact on Berhalter's choices or decisions but I am saying they are things that SHOULD be considered and that they do complicate the situation significantly).
     
  13. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    I think the trans-Atlantic flight issue is a total canard. When the recent u23 team was playing in Spain, they still brought 2/3 from MLS and the USSF decided to have camp cupcake play in. Qatar rather than have it done when much closer Europeans could make an easier trip.

    there are so many examples of consistent bias, it is hard for me to understand how you can disregard it.

    having now seen the depth of players not in MLS, I’d be interested in you coming up with a list of automatic call ups and then a secondary list of players who should be in the mix. Presumably, both lists would contain a mix of both MLS and non. After you’ve done that, I’d be interested to see how easy it is to get to 50% minutes and 1/3 representation for non-MLS.

    again, the gap we’re talking about in terms of roster is 6 players from one camp to another.
     
  14. Mahtzo1

    Mahtzo1 Member+

    Jan 15, 2007
    So Cal
    [
    Perhaps I should not have said anything about transatlantic flights. I DO think that it is something that SHOULD be considered when calling players that are in season. I DONT believe that it has been a serious consideration. It was part of what I was saying he should do differently. I said that he should focus more on youth but, somewhat as an aside, also was commenting on the dangers of overworking players. I don't believe that it is relevant when the players are out of season. It is also part of the reason that I don't have any issue with Berhalter not calling in Pomykal. I strongly believe he is at a level that should be called in to camp but also believe it would be counter-productive to bring him in while he was struggling to regain fitness as was true for much of the season.
     
  15. Mahtzo1

    Mahtzo1 Member+

    Jan 15, 2007
    So Cal
    #640 Mahtzo1, Dec 7, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2019
    Before I spend time answering this, I have a question for you. How many of the guys you listed as (I assume) serious candidates for the USMNT have you seen recently (within the past 6 months or so) at least once?

    I ask this because some of the guys on the list include Bobby Wood (152 minutes in B2), Aron Johannsson (420 min in Norway), Jonathan Amon (36 minutes Norway), Shaq Moore (429 min Liga2). (TransferMrkt). By this time I would expect a player that is USMNT quality to have played quite a bit more than 500 minutes halfway through the season in a league that is similar to MLS. (I know some will say that all of those leagues are superior).

    If you have watched these players recently and you feel they deserve a look, then ok, but if you haven't seen them play, AND they are NOT playing in leagues that are similar to MLS, then how can you argue that they deserve a shot? A guy like Green who is playing regularly and is (apparently) playing quite well in B2 I fully support, but those that I mentioned are definitely questionable....at the very least (IMO). What kind of uproar would Berhalter get if he chose a guy that wasn't listed as injured and only has 420 minutes and one goal 16 games into the season (10 appearances). on top of that, he isn't exactly young at 29.

    Would I like to see Johannsson healthy and able to contribute? yes. Perhaps that is all he needs, a season to get back his form and stay healthy and he may be one of the older vets that are worth taking on but I can't see it now.

    The real problem is that if you didn't look at the players I mentioned it throws doubt on the others. It makes me wonder what the basis for your choices were? Is it because they deserve a shot or is it because they are in Europe?

    Edit: I am guessing that you will see this as a defense of Berhalter. It is not meant to be that.

    I will try to put together a list of players that I believe should be called in. I will criticize Berhalter's choices that I disagree with. I will also critique your list because I agree with several but would scratch several from that list as well,.
     
    jaykoz3 repped this.
  16. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    #641 DHC1, Dec 7, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2019
    i wouldn’t call in aronJo, amon (except for cupcake where he also wasn’t invited) or Moore.

    I probably would call in Horvath and wood for a cameo appearance or so vs bad teams but only to get them some minutes for a transfer. Wood has earned it with his national team play.

    the non-MLS list is long enough without those types of guys for me to think that having only a third of the roster spots simply doesn’t make sense. In other words, Aron, Bobby and Shaq aren’t numbers 8-12 on the list of non-MLS players to be considered.

    In post 570, I gave you my list which had 22 non-MLS players and 14 MLS players, and Amon, Moore and AronJo weren’t included, so they must be in the mid 20s in depth order of non-MLS players. that’s why I think having a 1/3 quota is evident: it doesn’t match our player pool which more than 1/3 non-MLS.

    I’m looking forward to seeing your list of roster candidates. If you don’t mind, I think it would be helpful to divide the list into auto-call ups and then a broader list of players to look at.

    to answer your question, the only players I haven’t seen this year in post 570 are Opara, Mix and Lichaj.
     
  17. Mahtzo1

    Mahtzo1 Member+

    Jan 15, 2007
    So Cal
    #642 Mahtzo1, Dec 7, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2019
    You list 3 categories. The first two are pretty self explanatory (IMO). the third, "up and comers", is less so. Do you consider those players to be young players that are ready now to begin competing for a spot based upon what you have seen or do you see them as young players with a great deal of upside that could help us down the line? or possibly something slightly different?

    I ask this because I want to be able to formulate my list so that it makes sense when compared to yours.
     
    DHC1 repped this.
  18. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    #643 DHC1, Dec 7, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2019
    I was thinking more like camp cupcake players (with a much higher bias towards high ceiling than filling slots) to bring in in an experimental way and see if they’re ready now (although I wouldn’t expect them to). Reyna making bvb’s squad moves him up but his place could be taken by the emerging player at wolves. Maybe add Toye as well.
     
  19. asoc

    asoc Member+

    Sep 28, 2007
    Tacoma
    Just because the Dynamo are an ineffective organization doesn't mean you should use them as your basis for comparing against the rest of the leagues Academies.

    You say Bradenton was this big success... or was it just coincidence because it attempted to aggregate all our top players in one spot?

    https://www.soccerwire.com/resources/bradenton-residency-is-dead-what-does-it-all-mean/
    You can talk shit about MLS Academies. But it is MLS who is pushing to develop youth coaching in the US. not the USSF.

    It was MLS who developed the partnership with the FFF for training youth coaches.
    https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2019...ucational-program-partnership-french-football


    Now they have partnered with the German FA for youth Goalkeeper training.
    https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2019/07/17/mls-adidas-partner-germany-fa-academy-goalkeeping-course

    MLS has been going out and seeking input from the best in youth development and sending their coaches to learn from them.

    And there are a handful of academies in MLS who can compete with any academy in the world at the youth level.
     
  20. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    which academies can compete with the best in the world and how are you judging that?
     
  21. asoc

    asoc Member+

    Sep 28, 2007
    Tacoma
    Sounders, FC Dallas, NYRB, NYCFC, LA Galaxy, LAFC seems to be coming along nicely. Basically the top teams in the USSDA are actually good academy sides by world standards.

    You judge by results. For example
    https://www.soundersfc.com/post/201...come-first-mls-club-win-generation-adidas-cup
    So beating Valencia, Flemengo, River Plate and West Ham United. Does that stack up?
     
    DHC1 repped this.
  22. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    As many have said before, it’s not winning junior championships that signifies strengths but rather the development of elite talent. MLS has a long long way to get there. I think that programs are making strides but as @Clint Eastwood has stated, it’s very early in the process.
     
  23. asoc

    asoc Member+

    Sep 28, 2007
    Tacoma
    You can acknowledge there are some very good academies within MLS and then have the opinion the next step in the process needs work. That doesn't mean the academies are bad. It means there is work to be done as kids are graduating out of the academies.
     
    jaykoz3 and TheHoustonHoyaFan repped this.
  24. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    I’m hoping you’re not stating that I said all the academies are bad - I don’t think that at all. I do think that saying some are the same as the best in the world is a far far stretch.

    when the son of a senior manager leaves one of the programs you listed for BVB, I think there’s a noticeable gap.
     
  25. Suyuntuy

    Suyuntuy Member+

    Jul 16, 2007
    Vancouver, Canada
    That you're in a top academy doesn't mean you're a top prospect.
     
    jaykoz3 repped this.

Share This Page