Identify and help develop/showcase:
- 0 future USMNT starters + poor tournament performance = F
- 0 future USMNT starters + decent tournament performance = D
- 1 future USMNT starters regardless of tournament performance = C
- 2 future USMNT starters regardless of tournament performance = B
- 3 future USMNT starters regardless of tournament performance = A
Point being that if we develop future regulars with the US National Team, I don't care how well the team performs in youth tournaments. History clearly indicates, however, that the more future USMNT starters are identified, the better our results will be.
The drawback of this rating method is that you don't get to judge until a few years down the road. The payback of this method is that you don't get to judge while you're still pissed about how a particular game was managed. Youth teams are all about the long-term view, and not game or even tournament management.
So here are the grades of the U17 and U20 teams from 1999 until today. The U17 coaches need to identify the very best young talent. The U20 coaches have to do more than matriculate the U17 talent into their U20 teams. They also have to identify other players that didn't come through the Bradenton channel. (I = Incomplete, or yet to be determined)
U17s:
- 1999 - A: Donovan, Beasley, Convey, Onyewu (probably our best U17 class ever)
- 2001 - D: Johnson (very close to an F here - this class was a disaster)
- 2003 - I (C): Still strong potentials in Spector, Adu, and longer shots in Szetela, Harrington, and Gaven
- 2005 - I: Still too early to tell, but aside from Altidore (not a factor in the 05 tourney), this group has to date made very little impact at a higher level
U20s:
- 1999 - I: Cherundolo, Bocanegra, Howard, Gibbs, Albright, Twellman (no previous Bradenton class, so hard to grade)
- 2001 - D: Some OK pros, but no USMNT regulars aside from U17 products
- 2003 - B: Clark, Dempsey
- 2005 - I (B potential): Feilhaber, Sturgis has potential
- 2007 - I (B potential): Zizzo, Rogers
Our 1999 class brought false hopes and expectations from the Bradenton program. Since then, it has struggled to identify and develop the 3-4 regular national teamers we need from that age range on a biannual basis. The sooner Bradenton is abandoned and replaced with a more comprehensive development program for the U17 age range, the better. Credit to Ellinger for identifying so many future USMNT players and a few solid additional professionals in 1999, but he and his successors have bombed since. Overall I'd give Ellinger a C as a US Youth Coach.In 1999, Sigi Schmid did an excellent job of coaching the U20 team, losing only to eventual U20 finalists Spain and Japan (and the Spanish match looked like a nail biting 3-2 loss). He identified a number of USMNT regulars. In 2005, Schmid went outside the box to find Feilhaber and Sturgis. Feilhaber looks to be a long-term fixture with the USMNT, and Sturgis looks to be on his way. In spite of some tournament disappointments, when you look at the players Sigi's identified, you have to be impressed. I give him a B.
Rongen and Schmid have basically swapped U20 Cycles (Wolfgang Suhnholz being a disastrous exception), and Rongen has also held his own in the player identification department. In 2003 Rongen brought along two kids from Furman, one who scored in the last World Cup for the USA, and one who looks to be a long-term fixture with the team. This cycle is still an incomplete for Rongen, but bringing along Zizzo and Rogers (and Smith would be included if not injured) looks inspired, especially Zizzo. Also credit Rongen for taking a chance on Wallace, who although raw, looks to have some real potential in the long run. I give Rongen a B- right now, but that probably goes up long term.
The biggest disappointment since 1999 has been Hackworth. Yes, so far he rates only an incomplete, but the 2005 U17 team has gone on to do very, very little beyond Bradenton. Zimmerman was an alternate with the U20s where other starters like Arvizu, Soroka, and Nakazawa have basically disappeared. Kirk probably would have been on the U20 roster if fully healthy, but aside from Altidore, all of them are current long shots to do anything with or for the USMNT. Hack gets an I right now, but he's headed for a sub-C grade when the final results are counted.
3 comments:
We need to realize that our players have outgrown any coaching that we can offer here in USA, we need to get better coaches in order to go to the next level
Where do you think the 07 u17's will end up. They have Nimo and a couple others who are highly regarded.
Interesting grading system. A couple of comments though.
First, I think you are missing several players that should be included in the grading. Even if he didn't need to be "discovered," Michael Bradley was identified. Justin Mapp. Santino Quaranta played in five WCQ by the time he was 22.
Second, the residency program has doubled in size since the beginning. Not sure what this means, but it does make the initial class' success that much more remarkable.
Third, I don't think that you can hold the residency coach and the U-20 coach to the same standards. The residency coach has first pick of all players and is responsible for full time development of those players for a year or two. I think that the U-20 coach is doing his job if he identifies one or two additional future players. He has more of a mandate to "win now" than at the U-17 level.
Finally, I would factor in how many "complete whiffs" there were at each age group. Not sure how badly these players were all overlooked, but Rolfe, Parkhurst, Cooper, DeMerit.
Post a Comment