Best 11 Right Now

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by LuckofLichaj, Oct 19, 2018.

  1. gogorath

    gogorath Member

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think any coach is going to say about a player currently in camp: "They are here for leadership and then we're going to drop them."
     
  2. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    I disagree with most of this but appreciate the response.

    The thought that building out of the back and playing possession doesn’t hurt our chances is silly. Look at our best players - they are all best at disruption and quick attacks.

    If you think that there’s little material downside to instituting Berhalter’s system (as it appears to me you do), we don’t view the pool the same way and that possession systems are dependent upon the weakest link.

    I’ll ask the question again, given we don’t have a very good pool, why institute a system now that relies on good players? Why not wait until we actually have a lot of skilled and athletic players (full squad of major league players)?
     
  3. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    That’s fine but then it’s not accurate or fair to state that Berhalter clearly said that.

    He did clearly state that he thought Bradley is an excellent excellent player and that there are no promises about 2022, which to me says the door is open - far from being closed.
     
  4. frankburgers

    frankburgers Member

    May 31, 2016
    bradley went 90' in 4 of his last 7 matches for Roma. he went 90' in 20 matches in his first season. he only had 4 times where he was an unused sub, one was post injury. he played over 2700 min for Roma. Perhaps re-evaluate that passage.
     
    IndividualEleven and 50/50 Ball repped this.
  5. gogorath

    gogorath Member

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    Because:

    1) I don't think the results are materially different. Playing direct to Gyazi Zardes isn't materially different than playing possession with Zardes. He's still going to miss his chances. This is flip, but most of our struggles based on personnel exist in a scenario where we play out of the back most of the time or we bomb it forward most of the time.

    2) It's not like we aren't counterattacking now or trying to get on the break. And we don't have anyone who's very good at hold up play. So what am I missing when I play out of the back on hold up play? A question for you: Steffen has the ball off a goal kick -- how would you like to play? Bomb it to... tiny Christian Pulisic? 30 minute Jozy Altidore? The Human heavy touch? Try Hard Paul Arriola?

    When we get a turnover in midfield, we're still counterattacking. It's not like we're recycling it back. So our "possession play" really only applies to situations where counterattacking isn't an option.

    I don't think of it as a directive as much as I think of it as another arrow in the quiver.

    3) Our problems in controlling the midfield defensively will still be there if we do or don't try to play some possession ball. Take personnel out of it -- if Tyler Adams was our 6, I still want him trying to play this way.

    4) While I don't think most of these guys are going to be on the 2022 roster, the ones who definitely are (CP, Weston, etc) and some that might (Aaron Long, Reggie Cannon) are learning to play with each other in this manner. They are learning what to do. They are learning what they might need to work on over the next couple of years to improve.

    That will be invaluable as we good forward. If Tim Weah replaces Arriola and Paxton replaces Morris (or whatever) and Adams replaces Bradley ... integrating them, teaching them, is going to be so much easier if Christian and McKennie and Long and Steffen and whomever else already knows what to do, knows how to play.

    It's easier to integrate pieces than nine months from now, going "and now we're changing everything."

    5) Likewise, what's the downside of the two scenarios? In your scenario, we are locked into defensive, counterattacking soccer. Even if our skill and pool improve, trying to introduce a style of play like this at the start of WCQ isn't smart. In my scenario, you can always shift easily to more direct play if it isn't working, but the downside is that you lose a few more meaningless games. Or that's how I think about it.

    Let me ask you a question: If it were guaranteed that Bradley and Trapp and every other slow defensive mid were gone, would you still be opposed to this team trying to add another weapon to their arsenal?
     
  6. gogorath

    gogorath Member

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    I mean, he said this:

    What we don't want is to have too many players that we don't think will be around in 2022. That's what we're aware of. That's on our mind. For the Gold Cup roster, it was just thinking about that. How many do we have that have no chance of being there in 2022? That number we want to keep small.

    He's not going to get more clear about players he's trying to get to play hard for him.

    But sure, yes, he didn't explicitly say "Michael Bradley won't be on the team in 2022."
     
    onefineesq repped this.
  7. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    Why even stop at Bradley. Going by Gregg, there was just a small number of players on the Gold Cup roster that are not projected for 2022. What is a small number, 3? 5? that means quite a few of the following are penciled in for 2022 by Gregg and Earnie:

    Gyashi Zardes
    Christian Roldan
    Djorde Mihailovich
    Will Trapp
    Dan Lovitz
    Nick Lima
    Michael Bradley
    Tim Ream
    Omar Gonzales
    Walker Zimmerman
    Jordan Morris
    Jon Lewis
    Sean Johnson
    Tyler Miller

    Gregg certainly can't think 14 is a small number of players; that is more than 50% of the roster. That means that he views a large chunk of that list of players as having the inside track on WCQ'ing and the WC 2022 roster.

    Wow. Every Best 11 on this thread should have a few of those names.

    If you look at the 9 not on the above list and with the idea Cannon was an injury replacement, so he couldn't have been on the short list for 2022. Adams and Holmes were on the original roster. So that would give us:

    Christian Pulisic
    Weston McKennie
    Tyler Boyd
    Jozy Altidore
    Matt Miazga
    Paul Arriola
    Aaron Long
    Duane Holmes
    Tyler Adams
    Zak Steffan

    Those 10 and pick 8-10 more from the first list. That is who Gregg sees for 2022. The Hex starts in 14 months. There are maybe 3-5 spots to add guys in the next 9-12 months. If you include Brooks and Yedlin, that is 1-3 spots.
     
    UncagedGorilla repped this.
  8. manfromgallifrey91

    Swansea City
    United States
    Jul 24, 2015
    Wyoming, USA
    Club:
    Southampton FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Scary thought that this is where Berhalter sees the pool, and yet another example of how stupid it was to waste a year. Because he could then see Lovitz is not anywhere near international quality and actually learn on the fly for a bit with no consequences whatsoever. Its hard to look at his coaching record (wins and losses matter regardless of talent level) and feel confident in his coaching ability. But yeah his best 11 is extremely different than mine.
     
    Patrick167 repped this.
  9. truefan420

    truefan420 Member+

    May 30, 2010
    oakland
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You could prob add Horvath and Lleget to his list as well. Both left off cause injury. In fact Holmes could potentially be removed because he was only selected because of the injury to Lleget.

    That means maybe 0-1 spots. Now I got to hope he’s just talking and there will be more turnover cause no coach is foolish enough to think the WC roster should be reflected in a roster selected 3 years prior to it but from what I’ve seen of him so far he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt.
     
    manfromgallifrey91 and Patrick167 repped this.
  10. rgli13

    rgli13 Member+

    Mar 23, 2005
    Memphis, Tn
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    his second season he had 11 total appearances, and teams like selling players they dont want. im fine with what i said, thanks.
     
    UncagedGorilla repped this.
  11. Baysider

    Baysider Member+

    Jul 16, 2004
    Santa Monica
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    I think this is mostly an issue of language. Saying player X "will be around" is not the same as "penciled in". There are a lot of players who are young enough to meaningfully be around but are unlikely to be good enough, and therefore are not penciled in.

    While this is a best 11 thread, the pool of players who might turn out to be good enough to make it to the 23, three years from now, is pretty large.
     
    dlokteff and gogorath repped this.
  12. Pegasus

    Pegasus Member+

    Apr 20, 1999
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think this roster is pretty close to what I would do right now. hadn't thought of Cannon at left back and don't know if he could do it but if Yedlin wins the right back spot why not try him there. I'm also not sure if Altidore is the best forward to build around but sure right now at this moment I agree he's the best we have even though he can't play 90 hard minutes and he could get hurt at any minute. There are also a bunch of younger players who will be coming for a lot of those spots in the next two years and may knock some of those players out of the starting lineup and maybe even the 23 if we qualify for Qatar.
     
  13. rgli13

    rgli13 Member+

    Mar 23, 2005
    Memphis, Tn
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    how important is it to have "guys who have been around the national team" longer than youve been around if youre not simply a continuation of what came before?

    a quick look at caps:
    steffen 13
    yedlin 59
    miazga 16
    brooks 37
    adams 10
    mckennie 12
    pulisic 30
    arriola 26

    weve got guys who have been around the national team, bradley and his 150+ arent the only experience out there.

    of these i listed half have been around for at least 3 managers, the oldest is 26. exactly how much "time around the national team" by how many players is enough to not need geriatric babysitters?
     
  14. gogorath

    gogorath Member

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    Come now. There's a far cry from "How many do we have that have no chance of being there in 2022?" to "This is my roster I will keep until 2022 and nothing will change that!"

    The machinations some people go through to be pessimistic amazes me.
     
  15. gogorath

    gogorath Member

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    I don't know. Ask Berhalter. I'm not a big proponent of the need for experience. My posting of his comment was just to explain his thinking and point out that he clearly brought players he don't think will be capable in 2022 for experience purposes.

    In his defense, Yedlin and Brooks both are hurt and the next most experienced guy is 20 years old and doesn't seem like a vocal leader.
     
  16. rgli13

    rgli13 Member+

    Mar 23, 2005
    Memphis, Tn
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    i should have been clearer in my post- i was strictly responding the berhalter quote you posted, not you or anything you said. sorry about that.

    as for yedlin and brooks though, i was looking at it more big picutre, not this specific gc roster. i believe we have plenty of experience (wo bradley and omar/ream in the gold cups case) and two years with very few meaningful/high level games ahead of us (the toughest known being home and away w/canada).

    i think his quote is bullshit and now (sept friendlies) is EXACTLY the time to take the training wheels off. lets slide some of that experience to adams/mckennie rather than padding mikeys 150+ which only keeps that "need for experience" fallacy going.
     
    UncagedGorilla and gogorath repped this.
  17. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    I only took the man at his quote. Only "a small number" are not in the plans for 2022. It is only logical to then take the natural corollary to that: "most of the GC roster is in the plan for 2022".

    Nobody but you interpreted that to mean nothing could change.
     
  18. gogorath

    gogorath Member

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    It would more logically be interpreted as "all but a few are in the possible pool for 2022."

    You started a whole post where you basically whittled it down to there's 0-1 spots for players not in the GC 40-man. Do you really think that's likely?
     
  19. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    Seems like we all get quite carried away parsing each word that comes out of Berhalter's mouth as if it is gospel truth and then get pissed when he doesn't hold firm to our strident interpretations of his casual remarks or just pissed that he made such remarks in the first place. Personally, I'd take that statement to mean that he most likely only sees a handful of players aging out of the team and was thinking of that when making up the roster. That has just abut nothing to do with who wins a position over the next 3 years. If he actually had already decided on his 2022 roster this long in advance before qualifying even started it sure would be a bizarre and bothersome statement. But, I would be completely shocked if Berhalter meant that. Words and phrases don't exist in a vacuum, there is always context.
     
  20. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    It better not be. I was just extrapolating from GB's quote. Maybe he misspoke, maybe he lied, maybe he was confused.

    Not sure where the 40 man roster comes in. Was just talking about the 23 man roster. Lots of good players not on the 40; lots of guys that can't really be in the plan. Is Gutman really projected to be in the mix for 2022?

    If so many of the players will change in 14 months, why did we bring so many non-2022 contenders to the only competitive tournament before WCQ'ing?

    I take GB at his word and believe he expected this roster to be ~85% of his roster for qualification. You must be ok with that, as he can't make errors for you. I hope he realizes the bulk of the team he brought to the GC needs to be upgraded.
     
    UncagedGorilla repped this.
  21. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    you've asked this question twice and I haven't had time to respond.

    I'm not opposed to trying anything out for a couple of games but I'm confident that we don't have the relative talent against strong opponents to play a possession game and that it has real risk to us - building out of the back simply puts our defense under great risk of getting burned by good teams. We've been lucky that each of our opponents has been weak in attacking (i haven't seen mexico this poor in scoring for a long time).

    If we had great defenders across the board, i'd certainly be more interested but that's not where we are now.

    I firmly believe in putting our best players in spots that they are most comfortable in and that augment their strengths and offsets their developmental areas. I don't think that putting any of our Big 4 in a weird role does that. If Yedlin/ Cannon/ Lima/ Dest or someone else can do it.
     
    gogorath repped this.
  22. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    Is it fair to say that you think that even a bad pool should play attacking possession soccer?

    When we play lesser teams, we don't want them to play head-to-head with us? That isn't to the better team's advantage?

    You don't see any advantage to a lesser team trying to play conservatively?
     
  23. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    Like I said, Berhalter did not clearly say that there are veterans that will not be there - his point could be about experimental youth as well although the context of the questions would lend it to experienced players. He was asked directly the question after the comment he made above and he dissembled.

    My point isn't that what he said isn't valid - it is and he'd be crazy not to think it. My point is that you can't say that he's been clear about replacement veterans before 2022 because that's specifically not what he said.
     
    Patrick167 repped this.
  24. frankburgers

    frankburgers Member

    May 31, 2016
    well it was wrong. he got sold half way through the year. he's not going to simultaneously get appearances for both TFC and Roma....

    you mentioned nothing about teams selling players. your (incorrect) passage stated "bradley... not playing a minute"

    that's wrong.
     
  25. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    I haven't seen any determination to play out of the back at all costs. I don't think we are playing "Possession" soccer, a la Spain. We are trying to play Positional Soccer. As we saw a lot versus Mexico, and in other games, if they press us high, we bypass the pressure. We don't play into it. There was a spell in the 2nd half versus Mexico where it seems like we did try to play through the midfield at all costs. But I wonder if Mexico sucked us in to doing it. Or if MB and WM were so tired by then they couldn't hit the windows.

    But this whole conversation belongs in another thread.
     
    gogorath repped this.

Share This Page