Pre-match: 2018 World Cup Qualifying: USA vs Honduras; March 24th in San Jose

This game is "MUST WIN", nicht wahr?

 

If Bruce starts his strongest squad (Benny over Sacha and no Bedoya, Zusi or Altidore) in the next 2 qualifiers, I get the feeling it'll be pure destruction. Like 3-0 against Honduras and 3-1 against Panama.

Assuming we win both, the Gold Cup would be where we see a little experimentation with new players.

 

I agree with this. JK in a sense alienated the players from each other by constantly changing players positions and formations. If BA does nothing more than regroup everyone and get them playing for each other we may make it out of the cycle. I am concerned about whether he will continue to play MB or JA...or even Jones...if they are not playing well or contributing as they should. He, like most coaches, has his favorites, but I would not want to see Zusi or Bedoya again against better teams. I certainly do not want him to be carried over to the WC.

 

Are you saying you expect/want a new coach to come in between the end of qualifying and the start of the WC?

 

I am. I do not have enough confidence in BA to lead us into the WC. I know that no one probably agrees with this, especially if he gets us to the WC. But, I think he will rely too much on the same guys who got us to that point. I am not confident in some of them regarding playing international WC teams. It is always said that the WC is a young man's tournament. I am not sure he will venture too much from the fold. I know it does not sound fair, but there will need to be significant revamping of the team in order for them to compete against better teams. Some of the players such as Jones, Feilhaber, Zusi, Bedoya, and yes, even MB, will be older than the optimum WC player. Yes, we need several mature, experienced players, but the majority of the team needs to be in low to mid 20s.

Thanks in advance to BA and the stalwart older players who have gotten us to the WC, but it will then be time to step down and help with the younger up-and-coming guys.

 

It might not be that much of an issue. If, and only if, Bruce bloods new players in the Gold Cup we could be looking at a significantly different team in 18 months. We are looking fairly young and vital in the striker and CB department. LB, as always, is a problem that needs a solution but we have two good choices at RB. So we need wingers and midfielders.

Some up and comers I would like to see in the GC:

Arriola
Parker
Roldan
Hyndman
Villafaña
Palmer-Brown

Possibilities if they get PT before the GC (or at least WC) would be Perez, CCV and who knows which of the BL wunderkinder.

Whether Arena is naturally inclined to use youth or not, I expect some of the kids are going to make such a mark they demand a call up. We are all living and slowly coming out of a sort of Stockholm syndrome where we are so accustomed to seeing the same veterans, we have become resigned to it. My personal opinion is it is because our pool was temporarily depleted. There are signs, though, that it is coming back with a vengeance.

 

Another approach is to heighten scrutiny of older players in terms of form. They say the difference between over and under 30 is that injuries under 30 heal and over 30 they tend to hang around. Germany was a very healthy team in Brazil because of the more modern mentality Lowe instituted after Klinsmann's departure. We are deep enough now to play healthy players. The trick is to have the reserves ready and to have the team ready for the reserves.

 

I understand the concern, but if you look at the ages of typical World Cup players, and if you use the 2002 WC as the model for Arena, I don't think the age issue will be a problem at all.

Firstly, I've seen World Cup age statistics, and from what I recall (former poster Voros used to do some great work on the WC stats, even had a web site), the average age and the median age for field players is 27. The most common ages are 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29. 50% of WC field players fall into that 25-29 age range. What you need are mid-career professionals as the core, blended in with a couple younger and a couple older guys.

Look at Arena's 2002 core team (ages in parentheses):

----------------McBride (28)------Donovan (20)-------------

Lewis (28)----O'Brien (24)---Mastro (25)------Reyna (28)

Hejduk (27)---Berhalter (28)---Pope (28)---Sanneh (30)

-----------------------------Friedel (31)---------------------------


Yes, Agoos (34) played a lot in the group phase, and Stewart (33) was a key role player, but so were Beasley (20), Mathis (25), and Wolff (25).

Arena fielded a team stocked with prime-age players in the mid-20s and older 20s. That's why the team held up so well.

Arena got his reputation for favoring older players due to injuries/poor-form before the 2006 Cup that robbed him of prime age starters Gibbs, O'Brien, and Mathis. The US pool wasn't as deep as it is today, so Arena was forced into Plan B and play aging Pope, McBride, and Reyna more than would have been ideal.

I'd argue that the 2002 Cup is a better measure of how Arena will form his roster. The current player pool is well positioned to give Arena the same kind of mid-career, prime-age (25-29 years) roster.

 

With Nagbe's moving to the left for Portland and with Feilhaber's record in 4141/433, Arena could do worse than:

--------------------Wood-------
--------Nagbe------------------Pulisic---
------------Feilhaber---Kljestan-----
--------------------Bradley------
---Johnson---------------------------Yedlin
-------------Brooks-----Cameron---
---------------------Guzan----

 

Honduras Domestic lost 1-0 to Jamaica Domestic is about all it signifies.

 

Who starts at RCB if Cameron isn't fit?

 

Hell, I don't think he should be starting if he IS fit.

 

He won't have been around long enough to develop too many loyalties, and you'll be relieved to learn in one of the Facebook Q&A's he already remarked that the World Cup is more a young man's game. So I think he will start to delineate, at some point, most likely after the final qualifiers, and into the final January camp of the cycle. I think you'll start to see the signs in the Gold Cup. I was too particularly worried about this version of Bruce because of how much he started to mail it in his final year or two in LA. However, between: listening to his interviews, seeing some of the astute call-ups and forecast of them, decent integration at Jan. camp, a coherent display of strategy and explanation of it from organizing the back-line, pointing out we needed a better passer out of midfield, talking about the 433, using the GC mostly to experiment, creation from the wings to break a bunker, a speech about playing for one another and bringing everybody together, etc; I'm getting the sense that a last hurrah with the national team and possibly saving us from dq has been rejuvenating for him.

My bigger concern by a considerable margin is getting to the World Cup, after digging a pretty big hole. We could put in an individually respectable performance in the next set of games, and vastly superior to what we'd achieved vs. CONCACAF the last 2 years, and still be up against it. Extracting 2 or 3 points wouldn't exactly be ignominious in isolation, but given we'd usually have 3 points in the bank right now, it's very unsatisfactory. IMO we need at least 4 points from these matches to get our head above water. And we have to do it with predominantly the same core Klinsmann left us. There is possible attrition right now, and we saw a huge drop-off under Klinsmann when that happened because of how little depth he cultivated. Some of those players will be a means to an end, and we just have to hope that doesn't spell our end. If it doesn't, I'm confident come next year we'll be feeling good about a new core of players we'd unearthed, heading into the WC. Although considering it's in Europe, that still doesn't mean we'll make it far. The performances in Europe in friendlies recently may help ease their minds. That's actually Klinsmann's biggest accomplishment to me, as sad as that kind of is.

Why? He's been one of our most reliable players the last few years and is versatile. He's an option at cb and more trustworthy than Bradley, Jones, and Nagbe in cm, especially cdm because he's more positionally disciplined. I think he should be among only a few lock starters we have when healthy.

 

Because at this stage of his career, he is simply overrated by the fanbase. I don't see the trustworthiness you see, at either position you mentioned. He has lost the speed that made him a serviceable back and a dynamic mid in MLS. And he always seems to make a couple of huge errors each game when he is at CB. For me, he is the classic case of a guy who was completely undervalued when in MLS and then immediately overvalued when he went to Europe. I like him as a player, and he had a couple really nice years at Stoke, but hoping he can get off the DL just soon enough to throw him back in the starting lineup would be a huge mistake, in my opinion.

 

He is the opposite of overrated. Traditionally, he tends to get underrated, as he's played all over the park, including rb, and he tends to get judged regardless of position. There's a discernible difference in effectiveness for him at all positions. CDM is his best position, according to himself, from what I've observed, and what fits attribute-wise between his range, aggressiveness, tendency to make an error or two out of commission, hero runs, ability to pass quickly with options, good touch, etc. Our best game of the Klinsmann tenure IMO was when Cameron played cdm and he + Bradley worked a symphony vs. Panama in Seattle. It was observed in England and here by pundits how he bossed last year in games like vs. Manchester City. He was intercepting balls left and right and starting their break with one touch. This year he had a 7.4 WS rating at cdm through a few games, which is very strong, and better than all other positions. He was our best player in the Confed Cup Playoff against Mexico at cb, and solid, albeit unspectacular and over-shadowed by Brooks in Centenario. We've had some of our worst performances as an nt without him recently between the '15 GC and last set of qualifiers. He was plenty athletic when we last saw him. He didn't lose anything. Last year he was playing through multiple nagging injuries. This year he's resting it. Hughes was miffed because he thought he was babying it and because of how much he values him as a player. The qualifier here was "even when healthy", and that would be a major misstep if the manager felt the same way, especially with our issues at his best position.

 

We certainly disagree. Pretty much on everything. I will point out one thing though, which is your finding that "he didn't lose anything" athletically. That right there sums up what I'm talking about. He simply isn't looked at rationally. In his pomp, the guy was fast as hell and one of the best athletes on the field. He isn't even close to where he was athletically, 5 years ago. People simply arent looking at him rationally anymore when that can't even be conceded.

 

I have no emotional attachment to him. There would be no reason to view him in any other way but rationally. You're just using that as a cop out. I could turn it right back around at you, and would have more support for the claim.

He may well return a different player athletically after this last injury, but the proof is in the pudding of ratings like 7.4 at cdm, where range is more important than cb. Actually, he played box to box with Whelan staying more at home, so that statement is more true. I did back this up with subjective viewing. It's still an advantage for him.

 

Got it. You believe that 30-31 Geoff Cameron was the same athlete as 25-26 year old Cameron. I dont care how much support you garner from other posters for that, it simply is objectively false. Even before the injury, you could see he had to change his game as he was struggling for pure pace against players like he never did before.

 

Usain Bolt was still the fastest man in the world, at 30 years old. That's not an objective measure. What, do you have his top speed in the EPL this season, his short shuttle time in the offseason?

 

1) Geoff Cameron isn't Usain Bolt.
2) Wake me up when Usain Bolt is getting slide tackled while racing for 10 years, which could of course affect the bodies aging process.

Telling me what OTHER guys are at 30 and in another sport is irrelevant and not as objective as me watching Geoff run by guys consistently at one age and struggling to keep up at another.

By the way, Usain Bolt at 30 was SIGNIFICANTLY slower than Bolt at 25 (by his standards of speed).

 

It's all relative to the sport/athlete, and I don't think you know what objective means if it's YOUR PERCEPTION of how he's keeping up with the players these days. That's the definition of subjective. The most objective argument made thus far was about his Whoscored rating at cdm this year.

This is going in circles, and I have a sense that will continue based on the trend, so that was the last I'm going to say on the matter.

 

A rating of how people THINK he played is objective evidence of him not losing speed and athleticism, which is my contention? Oy vey.

 

Either of you care to answer the question of who replaces Cameron?

Not Omar please. Birnbaum? I really don't think it wise to give a start to a cb with one cap in a meaningless game, meaning the guys that just played there in recent friendlies.

 

Gonzalez or Orozco would replace Cameron. Has Besler ever played RCB before?