I generally agree. I didnt like the process, but it appeared that he came to grips with some of the players and he fielded the best team he could with roster he had by the end of GC... excluding the disappearance of Boyd. Now if he can move on from those bench players and Bradley, that would convince me a lot more.
It has been going on for a lot longer than one cycle, this 'move everybody around even if it means out of position so Bradley (Trapp?) can start.'
His in game adjustments are my single greatest worry at this moment outside of the U20s reaching their full capacity sooner rather then later. The worst part is that it's not even because they were necessarily bad adjustments but rather that a large section of the team had a completely different idea than the coach. A lot of the players wanted to play long while Gregg wanted to gain back possession. That's a huge issue which won't be fixed by learning. It's an internal agreement and an issue of trust.
So, Egg is learning how to coach from one of the guys he got the job over: More on Berhalter's visit to Sevilla"The US head coach came to Sevilla FC to observe Lopetegui's training methods, and to understand the ideology at Sevilla FC which has been hugely successful this century." https://t.co/VcaCdrWNnU— USMNT Only (@usmntonly) August 7, 2019
And I feel like it's not just that Bradley starts, but the team seems to feel obligated to start EVERY possession by passing to him. Trying to build out of the back is fine, but it's too predictable when every time it's the GK or CBs looking for Bradley dropping back, who is then supposed to do something with it. Any opponent who does any scouting will know that pressuring Bradley hard is usually enough to keep the US from building any meaningful possession from the back. That's one of the big things I'm looking for in terms of adjustments in the fall. Can they find other regular avenues for building out of the back? Or can they play longer into the striker who can then lay it off for Pulisic, Arriola, etc.? They sometimes did the latter successfully when Altidore was playing, but obviously can't hope to do that with Zardes.
I mean, I guess it's good Berhalter is interested in learning and improving, but it is kinda funny that he's going to learn from someone they reportedly could have hired instead.
Who exactly are they missing, and how often was Berhalter playing them in the winter/spring? This to me cuts both ways. I grant Adams is missing, but is Adams even going to be played as a 6? He keeps harping on Lletget, who he is only willing to use off the bench. It's this pretense we were missing a ton of people, when if you look at how many games his starters have had since January, I think give or take Adams this is his eleven. Most of the controversies, even if I may think they should start, they have never been that in his eyes. Lletget would come on late in games, score a winner, come off the bench next time too. Conversely, what will happen when Brooks and Yedlin are well? I don't think those are necessarily positive adds. I fear that like Arena before him, he will bring these players back and net out negative on the deal. But more importantly, I think taking the injuries for granted this is not optimized and getting the results it should. That was not our best GC team and only 33% or so was injuries. Most of it was self inflicted selection. And then, sorry, no, Mexico's backline was iffy, gave up goals to CR and Canada. Mexico had to squeak by Haiti late. I am not pretending that was their best or that we should lose that game. We hired this coach so this wouldn't be a second rate team fighting to qualify again. I do not yet see progress against the level of team where it matters. I also don't see the wins after the initial two games as emphatically positive statements. Curacao was too much work. Panama reflected his poor bench selection. You're acting like we can only build a critique from losses. I was the sort of player who would be hard on myself if I played meh even when my team won. The two teams we blew out did not advance. Everything after that looked too much like work. I feel like we have regressed from Sarachan, particularly on selection. And Sarachan was suboptimal himself.
The problem with the slow walk U20 arguments is those practices are derived from more stacked teams coming off more success with usually few holes to fill. We did not qualify. So this is not a team that on autopilot is sure of being at least around what qualifying requires, if not better. We lost half or two-thirds of a lineup plus some bench to age. We also pastured some players like Nagbe. The thing is we have then treated iffy players like they were world cup quarterfinalists. Yeah, that kind of team, well, we really have one starter opening and about 5 slots for new guys, unless someone is amazing. You can then put the onus off the incumbent -- who will have demonstrated success -- and on the insurgent. That team can say why mess with the status quo (dramatically). We missed out, filled slots with "next men up" who never had to earn it, retained faltering vets, and are then employing the same pro veteran pro incumbent games where we assume the roster works already, and put the onus on the new options. I am not even sure the onus should be off the kids -- I get the nature of our plight forces us to consider the untried (both as pros and internationals). I just think it should be an overall performance demand of everyone, and a less settled roster. I don't understand where along the way lately we earned a fairly settled roster. This team didn't qualify. Didn't win Gold Cup. Had a rough year last year against a killer schedule. Had some rough games this year against an easier schedule. And, yeah, many of the prospects are green and untested. But this all is just reality. To me too much of this is decided in the coach's head before we show up, and not on the field. I think a lot of this is we haven't missed a qualification since 1986 and maybe also have never gone off a cliff this bad on age (two might be related). We are arrogant and not used to approaching this from the frame of an unsuccessful team that just missed the World Cup and is lacking veteran leadership and talent. That to me requires some sharp talent eval and some risk taking. You have to find the new eleven that rivals the teams of recent decades. You cannot just throw Zardes and Roldan and Bradley out there and stop. This requires fresh thinking on how to handle a team and trialing and not running out a second rate MLS all star team who wouldn't even win that league's all star game.
As we all saw, during the GC the big adjustment in offensive rotations was to have, as the ball advances, the RB stay wide and move high while the RM comes inside (Boyd until his injury). This meant that the 8 stayed as more of a normal 8. Wes’s mistake did lose us that game, it’s something he needs to work on, but it’s eminently reasonable to expect from a CL player. I’m going to extrapolate from political psychology. Most people (70%) don’t have consistent ideological positions, maybe they have ranges of opinions that are acceptable but those ranges are bounded by their identities. An identity becomes salient in relation to an issue and the position of that identity-group (especially those of its leaders) is adopted by its members. So, “proactive, attacking, possession soccer,” is adopted by anti-MLS/Fed people when their figurehead adopts it (despite not being capable of carrying it out and barely making any effort to do so). Then, when the figurehead of the out-group adopts it and tries to implement it it’s fundamentally rotten and silly and should be scrapped after 12 games (two full-team rosters). Being a detached weirdo trying to look at everything from a remove I guess I just return to the original insight of the OP. Berhalter is a product of his experience, his teams have generally performed as such. Strategy -> The System -> Tactics are driving his decisions. He thinks that to play the way he wants he needs a good deep distributor in midfield, therefore he selects DM’s who can do that. He could wind up picking 30 year old Danny Williams (who, due in large part to a knee injury, only made the bench 11 times playing a total of 162 minutes last year) someone who has had some good and some disastrous showings in that position. He could decide he has a way to redistribute responsibilities to go with a different type of DM. Or maybe he has to start all over because the talent isn’t there to be effective at doing what he wants. Now that explanation is not useful to one side in an identity-based conflict. Their out-group villain is not being villainous in a way that reinforces and activates their identity. This villain being wrong because of a misguided desire to play the game a certain way or a lack of problem solving ability to figure out another way to skin the cat does not feel as good as being wrong because of out-group affinity. They may end up being right in the end. I was critical of Bruce for favoring UVA/DCU guys, because it seemed to me that he had a multi-year track record of sticking with his guys and only making changes when forced (he also is not a “tactics guy” so that explanation was not on the table). If Berhalter makes a pattern of mistakes that point in a direction I’ll call it out because I’ll have seen it, just like with all our past flawed managers. For me to make that observation it’s probably going to take more than 2 different FIFA date rosters but, to each their own.
Adams, to start. I find it odd that many posters think that starting Bradley is such a defensive issue that it literally renders every other decision moot -- that it is such a terrible decision that it dooms the team, that is it "rotten to the core." And yet ... the addition of Tyler Adams to this roster would not be a material upgrade. Before his injuries, half of USMNT fans were posting that Tyler Adams had surpassed Pulisic. Now his presence on the pitch is ... eh? The refrain usually comes: Oh, but he will start him at RB. He'll never replace Bradley. And then they post a bunch of stats about time spent. Which really ignores that Tyler Adams has been available for one game. And yes, he was tried at RB. But Berhalter has made lineup adjustments (both Miazga and Cannon seemed to earn back starting jobs in the Gold Cup). I truly do understand that the history of US Soccer might make you skeptical he will recognize that Bradley has slipped ... but he also clearly has not had the chance to make the change, either. He's played one friendly. There was no way to make productive change at the Gold Cup unless you really think Cristian Roldan should be starting. Adams on the pitch (even as a RB, but also as a DM) changes significantly the total level of quality on the pitch. I just don't know how people can ignore that. And I'm confident we will see Bradley replaced in the long run. Jozy, for another. Look, Jozy said he was fit, but he wasn't for a team that wanted to apply pressure and do what Berhalter asked. When Jozy played and was active, the team looked completely different. We created a ton of chances. When he was off the pitch or inactive, we simply didn't have enough players. (And yes, Zardes is a massive blind spot and a bad choice. So we will have to see if he can get over that. That's a question mark for me on Berhalter.) Brooks is a better passer than any of our other CBs. That will be an improvement, especially since he likely replaces Miazga, who was not effective at that in the Gold Cup. And so I saw a lot of things I like about the style of play. It created a lot of quality chances, even against Mexico. But also Jamaica (which no one seems to remember to mention...) and Panama and yes, the cream puffs as well. I think Berhalter has also been pretty darn flexible with the patterns of play. We've seen RB-as-CM, we've seen the RB push up, the RW push in, the RCM pull back. We've seen both backs push up. We've brought the CF back. We went to a 5-4-1 at one point. And right up until the Mexico match, almost every move brought improvement. That's not a bad record. As depleted as Mexico was, it was still a more talented team than ours. And part of that is that Berhalter's selection in some areas was probably flawed. But I think everyone is fooling themselves is they think their perfect selection is clearly on par with Mexico's B team once you account for injuries. Should Josh Sargent have been there? Yes. Alfredo Morales? Sure, give him a run. Antonee Robinson at LB? Over Lovitz, sure. But if you think those changes make this team better than that Mexico team ... I just don't agree. You can point to the guys not there from their team ... but when Chicharito doesn't make it, Raul Jimenez still does. Their pool is better than ours right now, and regardless of system, our pool needs to get better. Last thing I will say is this: There's a lot of legitimate criticism of Berhalter, like any coach. But posters lose a lot of credibility with me, and I assume others, when the criticism is blanket criticism or pointless criticism or criticism that clearly ignores contrary datapoints. Examples: Criticism of Berhalter benching Boyd and playing it up as preferring Roldan and Morris and specifically that they are MLS players. Of course, that's ignoring that there's a pretty good chance Boyd had a knock. Also ignoring that Berhalter is the person who brought in Boyd -- and he initiated the contact. Focusing attention on the roster on people like Mihailovic, who needed TWO injuries at his position to make the roster, or Tyler Miller, who what, was there for a couple of friendlies? The idea that Julian Green as 4th CAM option for Mihailovic means anything is strange. There's a lot of folks who seem balanced - they can compliment certain actions and criticize others. Then there are those who just rail against everything all the time, often illogically, or leaving out key pieces of information.
What injury? I dont recall seeing anything about an injury. I tried reading the rest or the post but over my head. It did seem to label people into ome of two groups which doesnt seem very helpful.
A perfect example of some of the positioning I am talking about in my post. A month or so ago someone argued with me about needing to get Christian Ramirez more shots at striker, because he was the striker at "league-leading LAFC." I honestly don't know if this was here or reddit, to be honest. I have no love for Zardes. In fact, quite the opposite. But having actually watched Ramirez, and actually having watched LAFC, I know him for a fairly replaceable poacher who only had the job because Diomande wasn't fully fit. And also that LAFC was not good because of Christian Ramirez, but you know, Carlos Vela and Diego Rossi and a whole bunch of other people. He was a rotational player then technically he started, so he was positioned by the other poster as "starter at league-leading LAFC". He was traded to Houston for $250,000 in Garber Bucks, a loss of $550,000 Garber Bucks, if that means anything. He's a pretty fungible asset. Got a nose for goal, but less productive than Wondo was and while you can argue him and Zardes, they are both at the level of "Hey, Josh Sargent, please break out!" But man, a month or two ago, for at least one poster, Berhalter was just a moron for not giving him more time. So many of these choices are six of one; half dozen of the other. Creating an endless line of mediocre choices to try out and dispose is hardly a plan. And it's probably not a great plan to center in on mediocre and try to improve them, either, to be fair to everyone. Which is why Sargent probably should have made the roster. But let's stop trying to spin things for our argument instead of just watching the players and calling a spade a spade. I'd just be a lot more interested in someone telling me why they think Andrew Wooten deserves a shot based on skills and tools he possesses rather than just citing stats that look suspiciously like the best six month run he may ever have in his life.
So the team was effectively built around keeping him (or Trapp) on the field for GC and the two (?) camps before that. Why on earth do this if you don't plan on it being the choice for the foreseeable future? I think everyone knows Adams being in the fold will increase the team's performance greatly. I just don't think everyone believes it will come in CM at the expense of MB. I hope you're correct, however.
So this is all fair, but I'm not sure you're really pointing out any common refrains. I think most fans wouldn't mind a rotation at striker if you have a bunch of guys that are all about the same/average, versus "Zardes is the same as all these other guys, let's stay with him". Similarly, if a group of fans are clamoring for Wooten, I haven't seen it (maybe on Reddit?). People here want a few things - 1. Play our best players in their best positions. That means Adams and McKennie in CM, no questions asked until someone pushes them out. 2. Any top 4 league starters need to be part of the equation. Yes, that means Morales is in the squad, and playing/rotation option as long as he's performing in BL1. And spare me the "he only played 1000 minutes after January! He played 4 years ago and wasn't spectacular". 3. Rotate through average guys until someone steps up to the challenge. Zardes stinks, give Sargent his chance, rotate through these other guys like Ramirez. Forcing players to somehow prove it, despite not getting chances to prove it, is how we ended up missing the WC with a bunch of old has-beens/never-was's. 4. Get youth involved asap. We pretty much wasted a Gold Cup starting MB every game, having Gonzalez there to erase the stink of Couva, Ream at LB for no reason. So sick of the constant refrain of "we need to win now!" at the expense of, ya know, improving our team.
I don't think the team was effectively built around keeping him and Trapp on the field. Perhaps there's nuance here, but... I think there were a couple of key elements to the style of play that Berhalter wanted to do from Day One. There's more than this, but I think: 1. He wanted to play out of the back 2. He wants someone who can switch the play and deliver balls over the top and generally exploit the holes that the positioning and movement of the offense should create 3. I think he absolutely looked at the player pool, our past games and said "we're going to get overrun in the midfield -- how do I overload this?" -- and that's the genesis for the RB/CM role I don't think he said (or was told) "Michael Bradley and Wil need a spot; build around them." I think he was given a general style of play, looked at his players, and tried to design something to accomplish that. And if you look at the original formation of the system, it makes a lot of sense to accomplish certain goals: 1. It frees up CP to freestyle and not worry about defense 2. It requires very little of a very weak LB pool 3. It creates width without relying on strong fullbacks or weakening the midfield 4. It creates an extra midfielder in the way that exposes the defense the least amount allowing the team to hold their own there Populate the defense with strong passers and viola! It makes a lot of coherent sense. And I think it's important to note that the general style of play starts with Earnie -- Berhalter likes it and believes in it, but part of why Berhalter was hired, IMO, was because he wants to play like Earnie wants him to play. The problem, which I think every critic would say they could see coming a mile away, is that the personnel isn't there yet. How much of that did Berhalter see and want to live with versus how much did he misevaluate? I have no idea. I'm inclined to believe some of both. If I had to guess, some of the reason players like Bradley, Zardes and Omar make the roster is for continuity and experience. It's clear that teaching the style of play and positioning and continuity are important to Berhalter. He's said that some players are clearly here for experience. He's talked about where players age out at certain positions. And he's talked constantly about how he teaches people and communicates the information he needs to when he doesn't coach day to day. I think Zardes is here partly because of that. And some of it is misevaluation, I think. And conservatism. I think he's overestimated how much he can scheme away player weaknesses and hide them. I think he's underestimated the competition a bit in that manner. I think he probably overvalues fit a bit and undervalues talent. I'm relatively certain he values work rate and defense in his attackers more than most ... which is like pretty much every coach. And I think he's underestimated the time it will take to bring players into the system ... and his original plan was to get the core right and then start to replace as better options came around. But it's taking longer than expected due to injury and other factors. But given all of that... I still think he sees much the same as what we see. And that Bradley is likely to lose another step between now and the Spring, and other options are going to get more attractive. It may not be Morales, but it's going to be hard to avoid Adams if he can stay healthy. And at the end of the day, whether this team is any good is going to rely on our young players making leaps -- whether existing stars going next level or players like Ledesma or Pomykal or Dest clearly upgrading a position.... We need those to happen with this coach or another. And I don't think Berhalter is nearly as blind as you think he is. I just think that his Gold Cup priority wasn't figuring out LB long term. I fully admit I could be wrong. Which is why I think there's plenty of legitimate complaints about Berhalter. And we'll see a lot more in the next squad selections. Maybe not the September friendlies, which are weird, but in October and November.
The last argument I was involved in revolved around how it was ludicrous that Djordje Mihailovic was called in over Julian Green. So yeah, there's a lot of pointless criticism. 1. McKennie has played CM every game. He's been up and down but has a consistent spot. Adams did play RB/CM (which people always state as RB) ... but he played 90 minutes. We neither got to really see the positioning he'd have in that role, nor have we had any chance to see how he'd have adjusted in the Gold Cup or even in the friendlies before it. But there's a weird insistence that because Tyler Adams hasn't played a straight CM role through 8 months! Without acknowledging that hey, he's played one friendly. Pretty early on. If the commentary was "I think Adams needs to play CDM and hopefully Berhalter will change that..." I totally get it. But instead we get rants about "8 Months" and the such. I understand the concern. But it hasn't actually happened yet. People act like it has. 2. Let's not pretend this is about Alfredo Morales. It's about Michael Bradley. People hate him and think he sucks. If Adams or McKennie was lining up at CDM, Morales would be a curiousity, not a crusade. But maybe it really is about top flight starters for you. I think there's plenty of room there for evaluation, and I don't think everyone needs to get games to evaluate them. Tim Ream was a top flight starter last year and a few months later he's shit that needs to be dumped. Level of play is a great data point, but let's not act like it's some unimpeachable standard. As for Morales, I would have no issues with giving him a shot. I honestly haven't watched enough of Morales to say whether or not his skillset is a fit, etc. But I do think professional coaches can evaluate these players without having to have them all come into camp and play. And I've been around long enough for Danny Williams and Eric Lichaj and Timmy Chandler and so on. People don't want Morales because he's a revelation. They wany him because he's an internet defensible alternate to Bradley. I get it. I just think that ends up being Adams or McKennie anyway. 3. Ugh. Disagree. Rotate through guys who are either a step above or have the potential to get there. The incrementality of Zardes to Ramirez to CJ Sapong is not even worth the time to train them. Right now, Jozy and Sargent are in my step above. Sabbi and Nova seem like they could have something. I think there's a bunch of guys from Hoppe and Soto and Mason Toye who could elevate. But honestly, I don't love Zardes. But there's no value in trying out a bunch of mediocre options. Find someone that fits best and work on getting a material upgrade. 4. I can see that. I don't think the criticisms are consistent there. We've had calls for Fabian Johnson and Geoff Cameron, who are collecting social security. Alfredo Morales is 29 ... he can help us now but I don't know if he has legs in three years. They don't need to be consistent; we can all criticize on our own. But I don't think play the youth even at the expense of losing is popular at all. Even the youth minded people simply assume that the youth is clearly better. I honestly would have preferred a move to only players that could be there in 2022 ... but I don't think the majority really would have if it meant losing more games than we did. I'd like to see Sargent, Pomykal, Dest, Robinson, Weah. I could be convinced of more. I'm pretty certain we're going to see Sargent and Weah. And I'm pretty certain we're going to see Paxton shunted to the U23s at some point. We'll see on the rest. Like you, I don't love US Soccer's general lack of enthusiasm for youth, love for veterans or generally sense that players "need to earn it." But Berhalter has specifically said that players don't have to be starting for the first team -- referencing Sargent. And I think Weah is clearly in that bucket as well.
I doubt any poster called Berhlater a moron for not starting Ramirez. Ramirez is somebody who hasn't shown an ability to stay with the game for 90'. He's a good part time cf who had a great flick on header in Jan camp game which was diagrammed by some expert as textbook "system" goal for Berhalter. Ramirez was coached by striker whisperer Heath at Minny. Bradley wants to prove something about Diomande and needs to get Ramirez out of the way. Mission accomplished. Now watch LAFC and ask yourself how Diomande makes them worse/better - he does both, Bradley just sees better.
To go at a somewhat forgotten issue, but also get at some of my concerns, there are stories Soto has been approached to switch to Chile. I realize GB seems of the Arena school where you earn your way up. But when your situation is one of fading or poor prime age talent holding back kids -- and I grant at first they would be an experiment -- we may have a "Subotic Risk" if we don't cap tie them. That Risk is fairly absurd if we then don't win with your proven veterans. And we may have a lot of that Risk because we are sitting on a talent pile not being incorporated, some of which has choices or can create them with the swipe of a pen and FIFA's approval. The coach has been in charge 8 months and upticks seem to relate more to fixing his own selection errors as opposed to looking more honed in the system. At some point I have to rate this as a matured thing that is either doing the job or not. To me that was GC. To me GC was not good enough, we lost the final to Mexico. I am also somewhat concerned that like my Houston Dynamo, we may get in an inertia feedback cycle. Rumor is we are dangling our whole front line for sale. Reality is the next men up are either second rate or couldn't finish a goal with a perfect cross inside the 6. Reality is we just fired the coach. Obvious response would be, we should adjust our tactics for the remainder of the season. Tilt the formation back. But the story goes that -- even though we just fired the coach because we don't look good and are losing -- "this is what we've done and had success at." I feel like behind the guise of "working on it, give him time," for Berhalter, is a similar sort of inertia. There is an unearned arrogance behind telling me all we need is more of the same. I don't like that kind of talk in a sport always moving forward (personnel, systems, tactics, etc.), but if there was a place for such talk, it's in first place. Where we aren't. I feel like some of the player discussions are evergreen "perpetual" or sound abstractly framed like before GC. GC happened. Certain things worked (Pulisic, Arriola, McKennie, the backs save Ream). Certain things did not work (forwards -- no goals in the knockout round and especially the final -- Bradley, Trapp, Mihailovic, Roldan). Can we update the debates to reflect the facts?
I appreciate your overall arguments and the general sentiment you bring here. I do have a few bones to pick with some of your arguments though. I've edited down your post so you can see which ones I'm including because I agree with the rest. Mihailovic over Green didn't matter. What mattered was the fact that Mihailovic obviously wasn't up to the task yet but no alternatives were tried. It's not just Green but guys like Nagbe, Hyndman, and Keaton Parks that have just as much or more claim to a spot as Mihailovic. Green was called for because he's actually done it before. I'd personally be shocked if he's in our best 23, I think both Lletget and Holmes are better than him and Pomykal certainly is. In the end, it was a meaningless decision but is part of a larger, troubling pattern some of us are seeing. Yeah, I have a problem with Bradley and think he sucks. That doesn't discount the argument that he or Trapp (Bradley-lite) has played every single minute under Egg at the 6. Honestly, under Dave Sarachan, we played Danny Williams and Weston McKennie there at first and it actually worked quite well. Then he suspiciously "found" Trapp and all of a sudden he became the captain and literal posterboy for the USMNT despite so-so performances. The biggest issue is the tired arguments we hear that "there is no one else" or "it's not Bradley's fault no one else has stepped up." It's the coach's faults that no one has been given that chance. Morales should get a chance. But he also shouldn't be the only one to get a chance. Ream is a good player when he's playing CB. He should have been on the GC roster instead of Omar. He's not a LB. I see a bit of a problem with your counter to #4. You want to win now and not sacrifice losing to playing youth. I actually agree with this philosophy wholeheartedly. But I don't see how what Morales will be in three years matters. If he pulls a Bradley and fades into obscurity at 31, that buys Keaton Parks, Canouse, etc two more years to become USMNT caliber. We'd all love to have a 25 year old in his prime playing in a top 4 league at all positions. But we have to make do. And honestly, if that means 34-year-old Geoff Cameron (who unlike Bradley is still performing) and 19-year-old Josh Sargent need to be on the field at the same time to give us our best chance of winning, I'm all for it.
Thanks for the well-reasoned post. I give Berhalter a pass on Mihailovic for the Gold Cup and here's my rationale: I simply think he was in camp because a) Berhalter sees potential for the future and b) he knows the system and didn't need to be trained on it. In terms of (b), I'm not going to blame Berhalter for wanting to focus on Pulisic, Holmes and Lleget at that position rather than bringing a fourth in. It backfired on him, but honestly, there was little risk to begin with and it had absolutely ZERO impact on winning the Gold Cup. Do I think Mihailovic is our 4th string or even our highest potential young player there? No. But there's a relentless criticism of everything Berhalter and US Soccer do. It frankly ruins the credibility for people to be ranting about this. People put way too much thought into fluff pieces. It's pretty apparent that even Berhalter gets that Trapp is not the answer, no? I can't speak to those arguments. I don't think Bradley is the answer, either. But I also think the answer is likely Adams or McKennie. Ream looked shaky, but honestly, having him there rarely cost us. Perhaps more in attack than defense. I think Berhalter is too conservative in trusting youth, but I can understand his point of view that the LB spot is so weak right now that Ream there is a viable option. I actually don't want to win now at the expense of youth, personally. But I think Berhalter has been pretty clear, if not exact: He wants to win now But, he doesn't want a ton of players who he knows likely won't be effective in 2022 If he is going to play or take a player who likely isn't going to be there, it's going to be someone with strong USMNT experience Disagree with that if you like. I happen to think he overemphasizes point #3, and I care less about point #1. But he's consistent with what he's said. And it's not completely insane. If players like Omar and Bradley are there despite their age to provide leadership, then maybe like Cameron doesn't make any sense because he's both old and prone to be a disruptive force in camp. It's honestly been a while since my post, but honestly, I think my focus here was just on consistency and relevance. Too many people just criticize every aspect of Berhalter and USSF as a matter of course. Scattershot tryouts of players is not a strategy, and it seems ridiculous to me that people blast the inclusion of Mihailovic ... at the expense of Green, for example. Both are pretty darn mediocre options right now - lauding the latter and criticizing Berhalter for not realizing the former is mediocre is ironic. I'm more willing to see how the rest plays out. But it seems like everything is worthy of a Category 5 meltdown to some people, even when it makes a bit of sense.
Frankly, I agree. Again, this decision in a vacuum is fine. It's just been a bit of a pattern with him seeming to favor guys who have been there which is really amplified by the fact that his first camp was Camp Cupcake. I honestly think this is TBD. If we see a fall window without Trapp and Zardes, I will be pleasantly surprised. Not accusing you of making those arguments in favor of Bradley but they're trotted out pretty ferociously by USSF sycophants. I also hate this idea that he's the only one in the pool that can play an accurate long ball. The reasoning for Bradley playing has been such a moving target over the years it's driven me to the edge. Bradley stuff aside, you're absolutely right. Adams is the answer or Adams and McKennie as a double pivot. The fact that we've never yet to see that is troubling but Adams has missed a lot. Ream was just a weird LB choice all the way around. He's a good center back but even there his main issue is his pace so putting him somewhere his pace would be even more exposed was odd. For me, he's the Brooks-lite of our pool. It felt like he was there because of a weird formation to shoehorn the Bradley/Trapp role into the starting lineup. And I actually don't think our LB pool is quite as barren as seems to be commonly thought. Both Lichaj and Villafana have performed competently for us in the past two years. Robinson is a young guy with decently high-level experience. All were available and only Robinson even got a half-chance to earn a spot. It just felt like a weird fascination with Ream and Lovitz that I can't justify. And I would argue that it did cost us. Ream, who again I actually really like, had to play so far off Bailey and Pizarro that they were able to get crosses in that led to both goals. Was Ream solely at fault for either? Absolutely not. But a LB that's not as worried about being beaten for pace can press a bit higher and make a tackle or at least force the ball back to slow down play. Fair points except I would argue that Bradley and Cameron are equally cancerous but one of them is the golden boy of SUM and the other is considered a cancer for calling legitimate issues with USSF out. Just my personal diatribe here. GCam can stay in England but I personally like him and think he's in a lot better form than Bradley is currently and he plays the exact same position at QPR. Agreed and I am admittedly guilty of this as well. It's why I took a step back from this board and am just now reading through what's been said. I appreciate chatting with you about this because you are able to defend some decisions while admitting others are probably incorrect. It seems like it's all or nothing too often. My main point is that there are certain patterns of behavior that are seemingly forming in Egg's USMNT that I believe will hinder us if they continue. Honestly, I see this fall as the most pivotal time of Egg's tenure. If we keep seeing the same players from GC or even worse (likely MLS) alternatives, I will be very concerned. If we use these three fall windows to try logical alternatives at all positions, not all at once, but especially at those positions that caused us problems in the GC then I'll be pleased that Egg is learning and looking to expand the pool.