Top Stories

SBI U.S. U-23 Man of the Match: Tim Parker

Tim Parker U-23 USMNT Colombia 74

The U.S. Under-23 Men’s National Team faced wave after wave of Colombia attacks on Friday, and one American defnder proved to be the difference-maker time and time again.

Tim Parker filled in on the U.S. back line for the injured Cameron Carter-Vickers and thwarted numerous chances in the first leg of the pair’s Olympic qualifying playoff series at the Estadio Metropolitano Roberto Meléndez in Barranquilla, Colombia. After helping the U.S. earn an important 1-1 road draw, Parker earned SBI Man of the Match honors.

Colombia dominated possession throughout the 90 minutes, but a big reason why Colombia did not score from the run of play is because of Parker, who cleared or stopped multiple dangerous opportunities. Playing next to Chelsea defender Matt Miazga, it was Parker who turned in the best shift for the U.S. back line.

Parker beat out Luis Gil, Emerson Hyndman and Mario Rodriguez for Man of the Match honors.

What do you think of Parker performance? Who stood out the most to you in the U.S. U-23s tie?

Share your thoughts below.


  1. I thought Hyndman was the only US player to consistently win back the ball and retain possession. I think the heat got to Morris. He was playing a few steps slower than normal. Virtually invisible except to quickly turn the ball over for long stretches minus a few nice plays. Reminded me of Dempsey

    • +1. I thought he played poorly last night. In fact, I think we were out classed tonight. The US controlled the ball 24% of the time. It’s apparent we still do not have many players who are comfortable on the ball in pressure, unlike many of the Columbian players. At times we reverted to kick ball last night, while Columbia would move it up the field at will. Trapp, Gil, and Polster underwhelmed. Acosta should not see the field next game. Parked played tough, as did Morris and Emerson. It was obvious Miazaga has not played in a while…he looked rusty. The heat did play a factor, no question. Since so many of the Columbians play Domestically, this played to their advantage. It’s a shame the senior team does not have the depth and need to rely on Yedlin and Brooks. They could have been game changers for the U23s last night.

  2. OK. I have been a big critic of the prep work that the USMNT does NOT do in the runup to very important games and especially how bad the thought process is.

    I was critical before when the USSF picked two venues to play critical games for the U23’s in the Olympic qualifying using Salt Lake City and Denver, both venues about a mile high and both times the players came from sea-level to compete with no prior prep at altitude. The results speak for themselves when the U23’s fighting extreme fatigue, lost to Honduras, needing to face Colombia to qualify.

    So about a few weeks ago we learned the venue and was relieved to find that the altitude was at sea level. The Colombian couls have held it at several high altitude venues. But a little more research revealed that the venue was on the “Caribbean side” of Colombia, on the ocean but also close to the equator. Any venue close to the equator and at sea level will be hot, PERIOD.

    So I want to know who the nimrod at the USSF who allowed Nike to let us have DARK BLUE/BLACK kits for away and hot temperature games like Colombia. Dark blue/indigo/black jersey’s like those worn by the US team have close to a 5 degree temp difference over light colored jersey’s (like yellow.) So while Colombia wore a light color and suffered in a heat index of 102 degrees, the USMNT suffered with a heat index of 107 degrees.

    You also have to remember that all of the US opponents, with the exception of Canada, are located in places like the Caribbean and Central America. And while some geographers put Mexico in with North America, it is more aligned with Central American countries in terms of culture, food and climate.

    In other words, having dark colored jerseys when you play all your away games in hot weather is one more shot in the foot we do not need. One more stupid mistake compounded by people who do bot have a clue on proper preparation.

  3. Can’t agree about Trapp who, I thought, gave the ball away a lot and got dispossessed on the dribble quite frequently and in some bad spots. Hyndman and Parker were pretty much the highlights for me.

  4. Its easy to see why there are reports of big club interest for Hyndman this Summer, his touch, skill and overall play is pure quality

  5. Hyndman all the way. I thought he was far and away the best player we had. Trapp was also excellent. Parker didn’t stand out for me. Acosta was awful–he got beat for skill, for pace, for power…he had a tough assignment for sure but he didn’t hold up well.

  6. The USA back line was huge, all good except for some bad mistakes by Acosta.
    Colombia dominated the midfield, possession and the game. Only desperate, deep, defense saved the USA a draw. The USA played with three in the midfield and were overrun. Two, Trapp and Hyndman are very skillful but small and slight, easily pushed around. The third Polster has a led foot, 5 meter touch, so he is always chasing his own dribble. The USA must change the formation and or the midfield players to win in the return leg in Texas.

  7. Hyndman needs to play centrally. He’s by far the most skilled player on the team and one of the only players able to keep posession.

  8. I would have gone with Hyndman (a couple of times out of position for Parker which could have been a problem, but for cover).

    Gil shouldn’t be in the conversation. Lots of turn overs more than offset a lucky deflection for a goal (not that he wasn’t in good position, but the keeper had that covered).


Leave a Comment