I continue to be both amazed and perplexed at the state and direction of the US men’s program.
A huge rich country with unparalleled resources and facilities. Three times population of Mexico and many more times the economic base. Yet, the record seems clear. The US sends almost no players of consequence to big teams and leagues and stil…
I continue to be both amazed and perplexed at the state and direction of the US men’s program.
A huge rich country with unparalleled resources and facilities. Three times population of Mexico and many more times the economic base. Yet, the record seems clear. The US sends almost no players of consequence to big teams and leagues and still loses regularly to Mexico.
Anyone have and idea as to why? And a suggestion for change?
I'd push back eeeeeevvver so gently on no players of consequence to big teams. Pulisic to Chelsea is a record fee kind of thing, but John Brooks plays for a properly big club, as do Chandler, Mckennie (in the champs league with Schalke), and Sargent. Weah is going to see UCL football in Lille.
Tecatito can't get out of portugal, Lozano's got weird stuff going on in holland or people just don't like his profile... the only big up and coming guy would be Herrera, right? And he's 29. At least for young guys coming up, it seems a lot easier for american kids to get to bigger teams than Mexican ones, either as the first step (Reyna, Weah, Sargent) or as the second (Brooks, Pulisic though BvB is pretty damn big)
Let me accept and applaud the gentleness of your response, but facts, not hopes and dreams tell me otherwise.
The Mexican contingent in Europe is too deep and long established to make any attempt at US equivalency was unsuccessful.
The Americans you mention play at bottom half clubs, when they play period. Pulisic, we shall see. He was not a first call regular at Dortmund and he is the only player of any potential “consequence”.
Mexicans take in Jimenez a genuine star for Wolves in EPL. Lozano, Erevidese sensation likely headed to Italy. Herrera, Guardado, Ochoa, Corona, each with a far greater profile and impact than any US player.
Your argument however ties directly to the core issue behind the US men’s deficit. USSF has gone all-in on the white, suburban pay-to-play business and player development model. The best athletes are not electing to participate or cannot afford to play. Look at that US squad tonight, the lack of athleticism was appalling. Our best young males are simply not in your available player pool. It compels the effort to mediocrity, and world rankings in the 30s.
I am sad to say but when you look at the regression the program has seen in last 10 years one must say the best is actually in the past and the future may be more like T&T 2018. Until USSF and our supporters accept that reality and move decidedly away from current development strategy it looks bleak.
Suggestion: fire all USSF men’s development staff, hire the crew that brought tiny Belgium from obscurity to world power in less than ten years. If not,keep building that lengthy excuse list.
Forgot about Miazga at Chelsea and Steffen at Man City. Neither of them will ever start a game in either place (see Olosunde at Man U), but those are big clubs.
I continue to be both amazed and perplexed at the state and direction of the US men’s program.
A huge rich country with unparalleled resources and facilities. Three times population of Mexico and many more times the economic base. Yet, the record seems clear. The US sends almost no players of consequence to big teams and leagues and still loses regularly to Mexico.
Anyone have and idea as to why? And a suggestion for change?
I'd push back eeeeeevvver so gently on no players of consequence to big teams. Pulisic to Chelsea is a record fee kind of thing, but John Brooks plays for a properly big club, as do Chandler, Mckennie (in the champs league with Schalke), and Sargent. Weah is going to see UCL football in Lille.
Tecatito can't get out of portugal, Lozano's got weird stuff going on in holland or people just don't like his profile... the only big up and coming guy would be Herrera, right? And he's 29. At least for young guys coming up, it seems a lot easier for american kids to get to bigger teams than Mexican ones, either as the first step (Reyna, Weah, Sargent) or as the second (Brooks, Pulisic though BvB is pretty damn big)
Let me accept and applaud the gentleness of your response, but facts, not hopes and dreams tell me otherwise.
The Mexican contingent in Europe is too deep and long established to make any attempt at US equivalency was unsuccessful.
The Americans you mention play at bottom half clubs, when they play period. Pulisic, we shall see. He was not a first call regular at Dortmund and he is the only player of any potential “consequence”.
Mexicans take in Jimenez a genuine star for Wolves in EPL. Lozano, Erevidese sensation likely headed to Italy. Herrera, Guardado, Ochoa, Corona, each with a far greater profile and impact than any US player.
Your argument however ties directly to the core issue behind the US men’s deficit. USSF has gone all-in on the white, suburban pay-to-play business and player development model. The best athletes are not electing to participate or cannot afford to play. Look at that US squad tonight, the lack of athleticism was appalling. Our best young males are simply not in your available player pool. It compels the effort to mediocrity, and world rankings in the 30s.
I am sad to say but when you look at the regression the program has seen in last 10 years one must say the best is actually in the past and the future may be more like T&T 2018. Until USSF and our supporters accept that reality and move decidedly away from current development strategy it looks bleak.
Suggestion: fire all USSF men’s development staff, hire the crew that brought tiny Belgium from obscurity to world power in less than ten years. If not,keep building that lengthy excuse list.
Forgot about Miazga at Chelsea and Steffen at Man City. Neither of them will ever start a game in either place (see Olosunde at Man U), but those are big clubs.