I agree that certain selections are without reasonable justification- like Baird, Lovitz and González- but our pool is pretty unspectacular right now. There are so few functional options between 24-32. I would’ve called the kids in too, but there’s time for them to be blooded. I just hope that we aren’t let down by the misconception that possession=attacking=excitement. Perhaps the greatest possession team of all time- European Champion Spain 2012- was also one of the most boring teams to watch. Ever. And I wouldn’t call El Tri vs. The Yanks in any WC Qualifier particularly exciting either. GB’s system is very good at ensuring possession once the ball breaks the first line (something that we struggled with vs Chile) because of how statically wide the wings and the play-side FB are. The opponent simply cannot cover that much space while keeping any sort of integrity. But in non-transition moments, the opposition also has a great idea of where everyone is going to be. The lack of movement without the ball from our top three makes us very easy to defend if the opponent bunkers. Ideally for this system we’d have a CF who could not be marked 1 v. 1 in the box on crosses. But that guy simply is not around.
There are several in that age range that are getting regular minutes right now in MLS. That is an important start. (I know the season is only a few games old). Mihailovic, Pomykal, Aaronson, Cannon, Sands are 5 that meet that criteria so far this year in MLS. (Aaronson has only played two games after not playing the first two but seems to be off to an excellent start). We'll see what happens. Obviously it is too early to project any of them as tier 1 players but I think there is a reason to be optimistic.
Why do you post in post-game threads if you don't watch the game? What do you have to add to the discussion? You only seem to like to let people know that you won't watch the team as long as Bradley is playing. When posters continually clog up the forum with their angry pointless posts it makes threads unreadable, and surely keeps some interested parties away from here. Your constant rehashing of your hatred for Michael Bradley and unwillingness to watch any game he's in is extremely tired and tiresome, and egotistical. Have some respect for the forum. It's not all about you.
GP. Repped post. For sake of analysis. I disagree about Chile being a F*ing good team. The Chile of 2 years ago was a very good team. This Chile is average. They didnt qualify for the world cup and have struggled as of late. Hence, the manager being under fire. Mexico beat this team 3-1 days earlier. Honduras earned a draw with Ecuador the other night. I think there are positives for sure, but there were glaring questions asked during both games this Int break.
i wouldn't count out inclusion bradley, altidore or even feilhaber for this team, regardless of age or usefulness in 22.
the u.s. team is already "strongly" different- probably more radically different in a short time period than any time in modern history.
The US was able to play good defense and possess the ball better in the 5-4-1. But can they consistently create offense in that shape? One of our better offensive players under Sarachan was Antonee Robinson. He has not been near GB yet, for whatever reason. At the end of the Chile match when Lovitz subbed in, I was thinking this would have been a great spot for Robinson. As a wingback in a 5-4-1, his wide defense would be minimized. With him on one side and Yedlin on the other, that is tremendous pace. A Trapp - Adams double pivot with Brooks, Miazga, Long is a tremendous defensive and long passing base. A forward up top and Pulisic and McKennie as 8/10s and I think we could score goals. -----------------------CF------------ -----------Pulisic----------McKennie ARobinson----Trapp----Adams-----Yedlin -------Long--------Brooks-------Miazga ---------------------GK-------------------- What would be great is that you can shift into the 4-1-4-1 with just one sub. For instance, Arriola for Trapp and push Robinson or Yedlin up to winger. Or sub in a CAM and push Pulisic wide and Robinson/Yedlin to winger. In fact, there is no reason you couldn't play phases of the game in the 3-2-2-3 with Yedlin and Robinson as the wingers. Robinson might be the best in the pool at beating someone off the dribble after Pulisic.
[QUOTE="Patrick167, -----------------------CF------------ -----------Pulisic----------McKennie ARobinson----Trapp----Adams-----Yedlin -------Long--------Brooks-------Miazga ---------------------GK-------------------- [/QUOTE] Decent lineup. 2 questions: hypothetical, what if the starting lineup v Chile played the U23 starting lineup v Netherlands? Me: The Sr. team better win but I would contend that the fans would be cheering on the U23s for the entire match. We would be able to witness the "cream rising to the top" with the U23s. Most, not all, of those starters better be invited to GC. I have my list of players to watch for the upcoming GC roster. Note: I have not included some of the players seen in the first 2 3G camp rosters Serious question: Please help me understand. I haven’t watched but 1 or 2 MLS games my entire life until 2019. I am nowhere near familiar with the players except what I read (ouch) and when I see players added to the MNT roster. Can you guys explain to me the fascination with Jozy Altidore and his perceived #1 striker status once he gets healthy. My impressions have always been that he started young and has a lot of experience for his age. He is physically a strong player with good to very good speed? His finishing is average to above average? But, I also remember that his M.O. has always been, when counted on for major tournaments he always seems to pull a hammy during practice, game warm-ups, or in the first half leaving him unavailable to the coach and team. Am I far off? All of you Jozy fans, sell me. I always liked Jozy but #1? What am I missing as a non-MLS viewer? I admit I will never watch Toronto unless they are playing FC Dallas or RSL this year. The consensus is that he is much better than Zardes? How? Better first touch? Smarter runs? Better finisher? Great assist man? Enlighten me…
A couple observations about Chile and the deep-lying mids. Our defensive lines (up until Triple G brought in Lovitz) looked like this: 4 guys providing high pressure, then a line consisting of 2 players (Bradley and Roldan), then a final line consisting of the four defenders. This is fairly standard stuff, but there are subtleties that need to be discussed. Also I'm not talking about defense in transition against a counter. There was not much of that needed against Chile, who built things up fairly slowly. I'm talking about the defense's shape when it had time to assume that shape. For the last 25 minutes of the first half and first 20 or so minutes of the second half, there was one seam in the defense Chile exploited with great effect. This was the area slightly wide of and behind the second line of defense (Bradley and Roldan). I really don't this this was due to lack of awareness on the part of those two. It was more a flaw or weakness in the system than in the way Bradley or Roldan were playing (and I'm not arguing those two are good defensive players). If there is an adjustment to fix this flaw or weakness it has to involve re-positioning the left and/or right back slightly. They have to move to occupy some of that space slightly behind and wide of the two mids in front of them. In the Chile game, too often the back four were flat and evenly spaced. I think the outside backs need to have their positioning adjusted slightly to avoid a repeat of what we saw against Chile. Of course there is some risk that making this adjustment will open up a new vulnerability wide of the outside backs. I'd rather have this problem. And I also think it can be coped with by asking the wide mids to track back a little more. On a slightly different note, I would say moving Adams to the 6 spot would not address the problem discussed above. It is a defensive spacing much more than a personnel issue. However, Adams at the 6 would fix another problem (not much seen in the Chile game but likely to become apparent), which is the importance of a 6 with better mobility and anticipation than Bradley when it comes to transition defense. Transition defense did not come into play much against Chile because for the most part they favored a patient buildup. But it is sure to later in this cycle.
So we're back to "big club" snobbery. And I watch Brooks in B.1 -- I follow Dortmund every week this year -- and my impression was he likes to mark space as opposed to people.
Brooks was beaten on the Colombia curler goal where he gave the man acres of space. He also almost needless to remind was repeatedly victimized in CR in quali. People have short memories. As a former defender, my feeling is the end all be all on defenders is does the team pitch shutouts and how many goals does that particular defender bear responsibility for. Player after player except Long and Adams/Lima being deployed out there, are out there for reasons besides doing their primary job, which is why we continue to leak goals in contested games. Brooks may be a better option than Omar or Miazga, but that's not winning the job by playing well.
I don't think it's snobbery to realize that some of our players are participating at a higher level than others. It's certainly one of the factors that should be considered in player selection. A better player is required to start in the Bundesliga than to start in MLS.
You're confusing club ball and country ball, which for some reason would not fly for Omar, who makes the same excuse of recovery, but does for Brooks. You either hack international ball or not. I have watched him give up at least one goal, to Dortmund, for marking space instead of the man. I don't think the people yaking about his 30 game run in B.1 have watched it. It's big club snobbery. We need to get back to, some of the big club players not playing are good -- Weah, Sargent, etc. -- some suck -- Miazga, Brooks. Some of the MLS guys are good -- Steffen, Long. Some seem to suck against good teams or even not so good ones -- Baird, Lovitz. Is there any pattern here? No, not really. And if you went back to their club situations you would come out totally different, but you wouldn't know what you were talking about in terms of what they do for the USA. Sargent had 2 goals last year in less time than Zardes has already played this year in 4 games for 1 goal. And his goals were well taken, not ricochets over foolish keepers, that are blown up because yay we won 1-0. When maybe we should be asking how did you only get 1 against a team basically sitting back. I think if we had the real deals in they might be on hat tricks by now against this slate of opponents...... This used to be easily handled back when you had Landon carrying the MLS flag and others like Beasley touring abroad. You judged people by how they looked on the field. Mr. Man U Cooper never took off. Landon was the face of the team for years generally making a home here. There are not short cuts. Watch how they play. Play the ones who play well. There has actually been a long history of not being biased in terms of earned positions in favor of big club guys. It might help you get a cap but it never used to be a Klinsmann style fetish. And now it's flipped around where it's like how much do you play at club. That does not make you the best NT guy. That means your club coach likes you. That may mean you play in MLS or the Championship and at a lower level. Some club coaches are idiots, or use people differently, or play at a different level than will be demanded from the player with us. Aaron Long, like Cameron or Ching, is a late bloomer.
You're conflating "participating" with "playing well," and when you say "is required" you're basically being a big club snob. What if a top level MLS guy is "more than required" for his situation? Like Landon used to be in MLS. What if the EPL guy, like Yedlin, is trash with holes in his game and no defensive savvy who lives off speed and the not rigorously judged idea he "gets forward well?: [Robinson demonstrably "gets forward well," ie, actual assists.] The thing with your approach is that if some prospect gets to play in Europe til he is gaining years ike Zelalem, they get too much credit for being Euro and then only after years of your theorized leg up, when they come back here, would it dawn they might really be journeyman average MLS or even marginal for MLS v USL in reality.
As a tiebreaker for a new capped player I might favor some kid on Dortmund over some kid getting started in MLS. But only as a tiebreaker. I would evaluate the players on their merits on tape for who to cap. I would evaluate what the Dortmund kid looked like with the team. And then if he sucked the MLS kid gets the next call. And that is a roster selection approach, not a lineup approach. What frightens me is for several years it's become club status as not just choice aid but like to decide who starts each week. When you look at Lovitz playing or Lletget sitting, I don't think it seems to matter how you actually look in the shirt, which is scary and perhaps part of how you get where we are. It's ideas in a coach's head, supported with club play heuristics, as opposed to who looked good last time the NT had them in. A subtle thing I am going to note is Berhalter was usually just Pope and Agoos' backup. The one world cup where he saw decent PT and that people reference he was an injury sub for Agoos in the knockout round. He of course saw the field a great deal for his club teams. But my memory of him c. 2006 was Germany toasting our backline for 4 friendly goals and he disappeared for the world cup. He likes to pimp his players and he seems to favor people like himself, oft used at club, but now what an objective person might say are the best choices. I think he has an interesting formation and plan, albeit one as yet untested against truly good teams. But I think he is out to lunch on selection. I think Sarachan, as bad as he sucked, was more in that neighborhood than this twit.
Once upon a time there was a pretty good coach coach named Bill Parcells who had certain standards for his players. There was physical standards and there was also level of competition standards. When asked, he stated his standards are proven to be effective in building a good team. When asked further about if he made exceptions to his standards, he said if you make exceptions to the standards, pretty soon you have a team of exceptions. A player starting in MLS at a position, that is actually better than a player starting in the Bundesliga at the same position, would be an exception. Note I didn't state anywhere in Europe. We are talking about what used to be called the "first division" of the top leagues. I don't want a team of exceptions either. Why? Because the vast majority prove not to actually be exceptions, but to be inferior players. Should this be an absolute rule to exclude players like Donovan? Of course not. But in the history of MLS US national teamers, I can only think of Donovan and Pope who were clear exceptions. To use another expression from another sport, it's playing the percentages. The tough choices are actually evaluating the guys playing in the various inferior leagues like MLS against each other.
I feel like the overall result of this game (draw v Chile) was ok, but the way we got there was pretty frustrating. After the US, Chile is my second favorite team as my wife is Chilean and I lived there for some time. I would have liked for the US to have our best 11 to see how we match up. La Roja is still one of the best teams in the world despite an aging core when healthy and focused, but this was a team in turmoil and not at full strength, missing players like Sanchez, Vargas, Diaz, Bravo, Jara, Valdivia, Beausejour, Silva and Orellana. Their manager is in trouble and the pitchforks are out. Patience is thin after missing out on the World Cup and with Copa America just around the corner. Granted there were injuries and other considerations, but the squad we put out there really felt designed to showcase MLS as opposed to being the strongest team we could field. Even the Europe-based players (with the exception of Pulisic and Horvath) were former high profile MLS players. We also have an MLS coach. Hopefully "look how far MLS has come" is not the theme of the cycle. A number of players were extremely overmatched - Roldan and Baird in particular. Zardes (who I have been a fan of) and Arriola (who I haven't been as impressed with) showed that they can contribute but are extremely limited. Omar and Bradley should have played their last games in Trinidad. It's hard to keep watching us run Bradley out there. At about the 15th minute Bradley gets the ball after a Chile turnover and Pulisic is breaking ahead of him in acres of space and Bradley somehow misses him, instead passing back. Pulisic is visibly upset at not receiving the ball. You have to think Adams would have got him the ball, well, unless he was playing right back. I know we are still in kind of a transitional period where our up and comers are still a few years away, but there is no excuse for starting more than half of the team responsible for (arguably?) the greatest failure in national team history. Its frustrating to think that after such an embarrassment nothing has been learned and few real changes have been made. We just wasted a year for the outrage to die down and it's back to business as usual. The media and even a lot of fans say nothing.
I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure that's true of defenders anymore in the modern game and particularly in possession-based systems like Berhalter's. I agree that Brooks is only average or slightly above-average in the pure defensive aspects of the game (he does get caught doing lax marking). However, he is a very good distributor from the backline. As others have pointed out, there's probably good reason to think that US would have broken Chile's press with much more regularity if Brooks was in there instead of Gonzalez. Also, Brooks is a pretty big threat on set pieces, an important component of US goal scoring historically.
I think the biggest argument for Altidore is the competition. I don't love him, but if the other options are Zardes, Wood, Sargent, Ramirez, Novakovich, and Morris (I think those are about all of the guys who have played forward for the US post-WCQ), then I'd take Altidore. We all think and hope that Sargent will take the next step and win the starting role, but he doesn't seem to be there yet. The positive argument for Altidore is that he has 41 goals in 110 caps for the USMNT, had 18 goals in 33 games (in all competitions) for TFC in 2017, and had 13 goals in 25 games (in all competitions) for TFC in 2018. That's scoring 0.4-0.5 goals/game for several years at a decent level. We don't have anyone else with that sort of track record, and he's not 30 yet, so it's not like we'd hanging onto someone with a good goal scoring record way past his prime. The other thing that I like about his game is that he is pretty good holding the ball up and combining with faster, more skilled players running off of him. He's shown this with Giovinco in MLS and with Pulisic with the USMNT.
It has nothing to do with snobbery. It has to do with quality of play. Should we play a team of USL guys?
Don't worry, Long will be exposed against better talent. Long has made many mistakes in MLS. I would easily take Brooks and Miazga over him.