All due respect but "ruins credibility" given how GB has done is kind of a credibility killer to me right back. More hyperbolic than anything I ever say pushing more consideration of prospects. He doesn't have a CV, including with us, where disagreeing with his decisions makes you objectively look stupid. Saying that might even possibly be true makes you, to me, sound pretty political. I think even trying to have some sort of calm discussion of the role of Ream, Mihailovic, Cameron, Omar, etc. is rubbish. None of them objectively belong anywhere near the field. They do not belong out there as the best current conservative choices. They do not belong out there if we experiment. Thinking they do means the GB mind meld hasn't worn off. Bradley and Zardes are more complicated because they do occasionally produce in the NT context. Bradley can still ping a diagonal we hit back in. But not much else. Zardes can score on some teams we might face. But not enough. But those discussions are at least debatable. Those players in some scenario are worth of the shirt. In a fair world, that earns you bench, debatable status. What is nuts is they start. But lost in your sort of presentist discussion -- where we frame up GB's lineup like it is anywhere near ideal and then politely discuss around the edges -- is where we finished at GC. Mexico brought an injury riddled team and still beat us. At that point advocating few or no changes sounds like definitional insanity. We played GC. What happened, happened. A whole swath of the team didn't look up to it. A sharp analysis would have to come to terms with what that tournament said about the various players. I thought outside of a short list it didn't scream "incumbency." Maybe half an XI: Pulisic, McKennie, Arriola, Long, and when he has his head removed from butt, Steffen. Some of the rest showed well but would still have something to prove, eg, Cannon. Some of them should have played their way off the roster, and that's pretty much anyone y'all are talking about. Nothing about this scenario screams that prospect-trialing would derail some juggernaut. Sorry, I want to see the players like Holmes and Lletget who showed some spark or even won us games this year. I want to see Weah, Soto, and the other kids who showed well at U20. The sooner this becomes an exercise where we leverage the ones who in reality play well, as opposed to try and abstractly justify the roster slots of ones who do not, the better. I mean, to me, you wanna fight the prospect arguments, whatev. I think it's dense but ok. But once you do let in people like Adams, Holmes, and Lletget who play well, and we get them healthy, this should be the end of the crappy player debates. Your solution is sitting right there. Those three guys should shove Roldan, Mihailovic, and Trapp out. Weah and Boyd should send Roldan and Morris home. Sargent and Soto should send Zardes home. What gives me a headache is we play all these games and then have the same dumb debates after like they didn't happen.
Is there anybody who has actually read the endless page 82 in its entirety? Here's an idea: Berhalter gets together with Tab and uses the September window to test new midfields and a different style of play. The main obstacle now will be getting stuck on fan fave Nagbe. Lather, don't rinse, repeat and walk around with the job half done because it fills empty stadiums.
I don't think this was addressed to me but for the record, I do not think Egg's lineup is anywhere close to ideal. I think it's very disturbing that we keep seeing the same not up to snuff players. BUT, here's the problem. With everyone healthy, who is a lock starter? For me there are only 4: Pulisic Adams McKennie Brooks There are a few more who should probably be starters: Yedlin (who needs to prove it but I believe he's the best choice still) Long Altidore (for now) I think every other position has legitimate questions and that's barely half of a starting 11. Is Steffen better than Horvath? Is Arriola better than Weah? Can Pomykal play well enough to move Pulisic wide? You get the gist... So in arguing the edges, we're really arguing about how to build an 11 before we can even start to build a 23 and an entire pool of 40 or so players. Like you said, there are several players we've seen that are basically a waste of breath to discuss any further. I said it in another thread but Bruce Arena called over 100 players in the lead up to 2002. He called 46 in the leadup to 2006 which was a problem. We've wasted quite a bit of evaluation time so we need to do a lot with the limited time we have remaining.
I think I haven't been very clear in my general attitude. I'm not saying we should debate politely around the edges. For the most part, my point is angry, vitriolic debate about the edges is pointless because most of the choices are not upgrades. I don't see the point in criticizing Berhalter about not bringing in Julian Green because Julian Green isn't any good, either. And I can see why a rational person wouldn't bring him in anyway. I have no problem with debate about the bigger choices and would actually prefer focusing on places where I (or you) see potential upgrade. I never see a lot of reason for vitriolic debate, but at least the passion is justified here. As an aside, I hate this quote and argument. Because here's the thing -- there's lots of changes that can be made that aren't widespread roster changes. I don't know that we disagree wholesale on the endgame, but I think it's absurd to take one loss, apply this "maxim" and assume that ALL changes must be made and that ROSTER changes are the only possible changes, We are not disagreeing here. Although I'd throw in Jozy and Boyd right now with the group that is justified. So I'm not disagreeing with you. You aren't even disagreeing with Berhalter necessarily, as they were injured. Who is disagreeing on these two? We haven't seen a single post-GC roster. I feel like people are criticizing Berhalter for a roster they assume he is bringing. Can we wait to criticize choices until when they are made? I want to see Weah as well, and expect him to be there. Sargent as well. Paxton, I hope. Soto and some others I am less sure about. But in general, I do think the post-GC rosters need to start bringing those players in. Are you catching me debating for Gyasi Zardes? The only think I disagree with above is that there might be room for Morris. But I think Berhalter is pretty close to there on his ideal roster. Which gets me around to wondering why everyone is so angry about choices not made.
I agree in terms of the fall window being key. I want to see Sargent, Weah and some other alternatives. I won't be upset if I don't see all of them. But we need to see players who could viably be upgrades, especially at key weak positions.
Somehow being a fan of the USMNT has devolved, over the past 5 years, into an endless series of Ludovico Treatments........
Back to the original post, Berhalter has clearly been a system over player coach. His heretofore constant has been to ALWAYS play a weak-defending MLS players as a regista/deep-lying-playmaker and consequently creating a series of cascading compensations to offset the obvious shortcoming. I will be angry if he continues to start Bradley, dumbfounded if he starts Trapp and seriously bummed if he starts Nagbe (who fits in the DLP mold even if he pissed of Berhalter somehow). FWIW, I think Nagbe should be in the pool but not as a regista
Cutting it close for players like Weah. Lille has a match on 9/1 and 9/11. Players allowed only five days maximum. Doubt he'll be released for both friendlies in September.
September 2 to 10 are official FIFA dates. https://www.fifa.com/calendar/ Lille has zero say. He should be called.
1. rest and rotation 2. competition for playing time within their club teams 3. the level of the competition
Personally, I think the only lock starters are Pulisic and Adams. McKennie is the man with no position. Brooks has been badly beaten in previous iterations.
That's a good point. However, just a good season in BL from either McKennie or Steffen will be enough to cement their spot. The CB spots, OTOH, seems to be well stocked with talent.
JK was the master recruiter. Spoke w/ Joel to follow up on this. Says he has work to do re: USMNT call. Most interesting tho was how much he appreciated getting a note from Klinsmann when he was at Stuttgart, Jurgen keeping tabs on him. "Players appreciate things like that." https://t.co/9NqDAdSCHJ https://t.co/mWPxMtP9vm— Arch Bell (@ArchBell) August 22, 2019
"are not upgrades" you're presuming your conclusion and when it's about players who have scored on Belgium and France it's shall we say, subjective and self serving the thing is that some of the people i am advocating would already have cap and goals history with this team, and are merely crossways with a particular coach and then others, well, holmes used to be waved off as "who knows" i think GC is tangible test results for people and a small set of them actually passed lot of mediocre, roldan/mihailovic type players out there consuming spots and playing time, much less the more productive but frustrating Zardes-type travesties that would be the actual debate i mean, are you really saying some of the scrubs who made the GC roster like Mihailovic are better than Green, that the pool "are not upgrades?"
Who hasn't been badly beaten in previous iterations? Brooks isn't perfect but aside from injuries what is the argument that when healthy he's not a lock starter?
We shouldn't be over the moon about Dest. He's promising but has a long way to go. Otherwise, he would be starting at Ajax. I want to build the reputation of the USA and avoid the bad attitudes we could create by forcing the issue on bi-nats.
I think I've been pretty clear about this, so I'll try to be succinct. Nope, I don't think about 80% of the players suggested here are upgrades. Roldan and Mihailovic didn't pass the Mexico test and I don't think Julian Green does, either. And before you throw the France friendly out there, remember that Wil Trapp was the defensive lynchpin of that defense. And Wil Trapp doesn't pass the test, either. On a board that supposed to be full of people who know the sport, I'm shocked at the number of people who seem to think the only way to evaluate a player is literally bring him in and give him time. I think a good coach, scouting staff, a half-competent fan can eliminate a whole lot of people who simply aren't good enough. Could I be wrong? I suppose, but but the pool of players that Green is in is massive -- in terms of players who are playing at his level -- and you can't play them all. Maybe Green is better than Mihailovic in skillset, but not enough to make any real substantial difference. Add in that Mihailovic was *literally the FOURTH string CAM* on Berhalter's list at minimum, and that he played 0 material minutes in the Gold Cup, and it really won't be an upgrade at all. His competition is Holmes, Lleget and Pomykal -- for a backup spot! That should all be very clear to anyone who's objective is looking at the roster and less clear to someone's objective is complaining. But yes, let's keep holding up Mihailovic so that it looks worse. And that's before I even point out that Green's game is hardly one that fits in with a team that's trying to ... you know ... pass the ball. Green's young, so maybe he'll improve. But holy cow, he's not improving this team right now.
Green was not in the 40-man roster. Mihailovic was. If Green is better than Mihailovic, as he appears to be, why was Green not in the 40 instead? Isn't Berhalter's job to select the best players? I thought that was the whole idea.
There’s a new (bad) argument going around. It effectively says that unless a player is a world-class difference maker, it doesn’t matter if they are part of the squad. We’ve seen it said about Morales vs Bradley (where I think the difference is marked to an extreme) and now with green vs. Mihalovich. I couldn’t disagree more. Making small improvements up and down the roster is the difference between winning and losing important games. Berhalter has shown a clear bias towards MLS/familiarity and we have to hope against hope that he changes his tune. One would think that his familiarity with the MLS pool would allow him to “eliminate a whole lot of [MLS] people who simply aren't good enough” without having to call them into multiple camps. If he isn’t familiar enough with players in his own league to know that his repeated call ups don’t have it what it takes, it appears that familiarity isn’t much use.