see above. i am bored of the pretense to objectivity y'all have. https://www.transfermarkt.us/john-anthony-brooks/nationalmannschaft/spieler/124732 i invite you to note the rows of red on the games he plays ie "losses" to notice the linescores against decent teams when he starts ie 1-2 Jamaica GC semi ("oh, but he's never had a chance regionally....") loss to Panama GC 4th place 0-2 Colombia 0-4 Argentina CA 4th place 1-2 Mexico 0-4 CR didn't qualify 0-2 Brazil 2-4 Colombia 0-3 England hasn't changed a thing i am curious when the big game payoff for mr. bundesliga starts, let me know basically snobbery hiding behind "dragging" anyone that gets their own chance snobbery is not borne out in reality statistically
1. Gotta qualify out of Concacaf in order win the World Cup. 2. We're only the 3rd best team in Concacaf, right now 3. Copa America 1. Dempsey 2. Jones 3. Brooks.
brooks was the best player on the team at CA? hahahahahaha as discussed above, you might want to stop ANYONE before telling me he can handle concacaf -- which he didn't do at GC 2015 and didn't do in qualifying against the big dogs after not qualifying spare me the "we are preparing for bigger things" this is like snob mantra and you might want to qualify here first at which point, some people demonstrably have done it, others have not brooks is in the not column to date whether you like it or not we need basic functionality first i guess you like 4th place except they take 3 teams
it's kind of laughable to talk up CA 2016 when the reality is we beat one team there that went on to Russia -- CR -- who then roasted Brooks over a spit away for yuks we basically beat who we were supposed to -- who didn't qualify -- and got reamed by the teams that did qualify -- one lame exception to that rule that was enough for 4th we did a lot of 4thing and then finished 5th in hex i am after upgrading from 4th
i giggle at people arguing we should get the 2015 GC band of yedlin and brooks back together who couldn't get past jamaica or panama to do better than 4th in the region yeah we should really go back to that lame low point
It's crazy, we did that successfully back in 2002. And nobody has ever called Arena a tactical genius...
Yedlin didn't start either of those games. In fact, if you polled this forum for a starting XI right now, my guess is that Brooks is the only player who started either of those who would appear in more than a handful of lists.
@juvechelsea won't quote just due to how long the posts are but you typed all of that to simply ignore how bad Long as been recently. It's not really a solid way to argue your point if you refuse to concede simple facts like Long's form has been poor for months at this point. But again, all stats and no context for you.
We should focus on winning our region first. I am old enough to remember when we were the best team in CONCACAF.
and I am old enough to remember when qualifying for the World Cup was far from assured and HUGE news in the soccer community when it happened. When we first qualified (Italy 1990 I think) after the WC actually became something huge soccer in the US pretty much took off and the next WC (Here in the US really helped) it really looked to be the beginning of great things for US soccer. But at that time the MLS happened and in spite of the good having a league brought the cancer of politics began its eating away at the good life of US soccer that was beginning and the good degraded to what we have today where a poor group of players are coached by a bad coach and we are told it is the best that can be done. We may well qualify for the next WC but it will not be because we are good it will be because the rest of CONCACAF, except Mexico, is so horrible.
My point is these aren't mutually exclusive. Obviously we have a ways to go to even be a respectable team at this point (and Egg's continued fascination with a couple Lions isn't helping), but the idea of picking lesser players just because we've seen them beat Guyana vs. better players that lost to Brazil is simply bizarre.
I'm not seeing the talent pool and coaching to win the World Cup. Another quarterfinals appearance would be a great accomplishment.
I tend to think that the team that wins the Hex and the Gold Cup is also going to be our best team to beat Brazil. See:2009
Um, yes. I don't know anyone who would disagree with that. I think most want us to pick our best players and put them in the starting 11. That's why most would have Brooks as a building block, and most want the Lions out (who couldn't win the Hex or Gold Cup). The previous poster wasn't arguing this, only that he wants guys who just finished 2nd in the GC over the players who lost to France and Brazil.
Without addressing part of your post, I would like to point out a fact that I know you are aware of but is very important regarding Brooks: he has been injured multiple times and it is coming to the point where using him as a building block is a questionable strategy. If he were available, he fits the profile that I believe Berhalter would like to use as a key building block. I think that Berhalter sees Dest as a future building block if he continues to improve (for the same reason he seems to like Brooks). I am sure that at least some people would agree that Pulisic, McKennie, Adams, Possibly Brooks (off the top of my head) are 4 established players we should be building around (in a perfect world). Unfortunately, two of those have had injury issues.
I wouldn’t say Adams has injury issues. This is the first time I remember him being out any length of time. Or were you saying Pulisic has injury issues?
It' s ok to say Long is in a run of bad form as long as we treat Brooks the same way. My guess is that Brooks' form goes up and down with physical issues. Yet, we cant very well say - altho many do - that "Brooks is not in good form at the moment but when he's healthy he is our best cb so we must call him in". Even Scuffed on their last podcast remarked that it was best to plan without Brooks going forward due to injury issues. I've been doing exactly that for some time now. That doesn't mean I automatically call in Long if he isn't playing well.
I agree that there haven't been injury issues over the history of his career and I am not trying to imply that they will continue but only that he has been unavailable due to injury for quite a long time. It is also true that it took him far longer to return to action than was initially predicted. If I had to guess, that won't be the pattern going forward...I hope not but until he is back, we really don't know. Altidore, though perhaps not a long term building bloc, is another key player that has had historical injury issues. His history makes it far more important that some of our young attackers come good within a year or so. I think the prognosis is good but nothing is a sure thing.
It's more a counterpoint to him calling everyone eurosnobs and acting like we ignore bad games from Euro players when he's doing the same thing with Long.
re Roldan, one thought to toss out is he plays on field turf most of the time and whether any of that is transferable to grass
except i don't ignore them. i provided stats that acknowledge them but put them in context. i admit he got beat on the play. i can then point you to a string of wins with shutouts. i can show you a qualifying game where brooks was on the hook for 3-4 goals in one game. and when he played gold cup we dumped out in 4th place with losses in the semi and final. WE ALREADY TRIED YOUR WAY AT THE START OF LAST CYCLE AND RAN FROM IT WHEN WE WEREN'T GETTING TRACTION. at some level you're just saying defending a guy is not objective. which given what the numbers show is whacked. what looks non-objective to me is backing brooks when i can't remember a big game in years we have won trying to rely on him. the past two years he has one early season friendly win and then 3 losses to name teams where we shipped goals by the bushel. he has an easily documented history of being a starting back in games where got the crap beat out of us. you keep pushing we need a type of player who can handle the big games -- suggesting it's mr. bundesliga based on his level of league -- then ignore how those big games actually go. if you offer a metric but don't apply it to everyone, it's just a talking point, not a metric. you want metrics we look at how everyone handles that stat. take my affection for long out of the equation -- fine -- i just want the best backs who allow the fewest goals. we could play anyone we want but the stats suggest brooks is one of the worst possible decisions. i would even grant that some of the other options might see their GA go up some if they got these serious games. i doubt it's over 2 goals a game. long has just 2 games where we shipped more than 1 goal. but the point is to acknowledge what happens and test other options -- rather than just assume the conclusion and never try.
trumpian broadbrush rhetoric posing as analysis. it's hard to have "poor recent form" when your first cap was october 2018. "months?" you're talking about during the time we were getting wins and shutouts? you're neglecting how he won the job. from january to july we had a period where we lost 1 game he played -- venezuela -- and a lot of wins and shutouts. pounding the table and making sweeping statements you don't tie into specific events doesn't make what you say true. try identifying games and we can actually talk turkey. the guy people talk like burned him is the wingback's man he's trying to cover for.