he had no memorable impact at GC whatsoever, forward or otherwise. and while you are trying to limit the sample size to the forward games, he has played 15 times for the US and often in an advanced position. i rarely remember him playing as a 6. his stats then are what they are. and that's not just 49'. you're pushing this abstracted definition of what a 6 does but then oddly not applying it to the player you are advocating, who has not stood out as a ballwinner. you then by sleight of hand offer me passing instead. ok, at that point you are kind of trying to offer me "Roldan the forward" or "Roldan the 10" instead. you then can't play the game of saying "but that's two different skill sets." he then has to supply the tradeoff which draws upon skills usually deployed by players in a more advanced position. if his offering is a "6 with 10 skills" you then cannot argue back, "when he played 10 is irrelevant." what y'all are missing is that if you sell a player as having attacking qualities we can use instead, they need to have manifested when they were used in the attack. otherwise you are just making a talking point. we seem to love to make excuses for bad choices by invoking some sort of cutesy defense or talking point. what i want is hold players to the standard of their position. and if you try to offer me something else instead they had better be a star at that function. he's just kind of "there" and i find the focus on him laughable other than the circularity feedback loop of the coach likes him ergo we talk about him ergo the coach can act like he should be there because he's being talked about. absurd. under any other coach 6-10 guys would disappear for being odd choices who never show well or outright cost us.
I was thinking about it the other day and was like, wow, we don't look like we play together much this from a team selling "system" and "process" right now we right now play a very deliberate and predictable game, route 1 longballs, pass it around at modest tempo, get it wide, either cross or cut in. see it coming a mile away. they could use someone like mendez who can crush a ball on cage from 25 or so out, where the mids themselves are threats so you can't just collapse on the forwards that plus better deadball service and occasional free kick goals, cheaper stuff, not have to work so hard for everything they need to combo play off each other, wall balls, flicks, you know, look like you've played together before tempo needs to go way up to play this side to side stuff need more cut ins from the wings, i mean, pulisic is more dangerous than zardes and i think they need more of a wing speed element where we could simply get in behind teams i am amused when i hear him talk like we're improving despite results because i don't see it
one thing i feel i must respond to here is that historically there were periods we took GC less seriously. part of our issue, to me, is we have increased the list of games treated like the world cup final, with winning as the primary goal, second, third, and fourth goal as well, and that increases the pressure to select conservatively, reduce "risk of experimentation." but in the past 2 cycles when this has really taken hold, we have won 1 out of 4 tournaments, lost the regional playoff, and failed to qualify for Russia. the conservatism does not perpetuate the results. i don't understand conservatism from a team not in first place that never seems more gelled the next game. historically for certain GC and Copa America tournaments we have sometimes sent second/experimental teams. we until the new rules would often send a second choice/experimental roster to GC bolstered when we advanced. we routinely left leading players off to rest eg Reyna. i think a creative approach to chasing U23 qualification and experimenting would have been send to GC an entirely or mostly U23 team, kick the tires on other options, gel the U23s, rest the obvious people. i also think you could have sent an experimental team and achieved roughly the same results, give or take a round or a loss here or there, and we would know more about what we have to work with. as it is we have spent most of this year trying to confirm the team we started the year/March with. i think we are stuck in the absurd position of defending the status quo and in that position experimentation poses the risk of undermining the facade. people will start asking why x, y, and z aren't included. pressure may be brought to bear to shove off inexplicable favorites for people who actually play well.
i mean, you'd think for a team with a fairly established ensemble cast we'd be a well oiled machine, but that's how miscast the production is in terms of selection and system
I don't disagree with that, and haven't previously. You're the one who stated that the reason you didn't see him as the 6 because he didn't score or assist as a forward -- your word. I realize you are trying to watch back that horrific piece of logic now as you try to justify it. Just admit that it's ridiculous to take 49 minutes as a forward to say someone can't play a 6. He plays mostly as a defensive / roving 8 for Seattle. That's a position not far off from how many want the US 6 to play (but not really what Berhalter wants). It's not a shock someone would want him tried there. It's not an unusual transition. Surely where someone plays is relevant to the stats they are going to acquire? I've never pushed Roldan. If you go back and actually read my posts, I'm not advocating for him. I'm pretty clear actually, I'm not. But I think your logic is faulty and ridiculous. Roldan isn't super talented, he doesn't fit Berhalter's definition (though could probably do the job most people want in a pinch) and just looks a lot to me like a worse but younger Alfredo Morales. But his lack of goals or assists in 49' is not a reason not to start him at the 6.
lost in all this "the 6 will whack it upfield" talk is what the plan is for advancing the ball through midfield. how does this particular trio of mids work the ball together upfield. i think if you ask that you start questioning selection ie how a particular trio could even manage it. the "6 will handle it" strikes me as sort of "miracle happens here" from computer diagrams, but even less scientific. if the 6 is just whacking the ball forward then you are supposed to ignore we can't seem to string 2 normal passes together in midfield under pressure. all you need is the one pass then, i guess.
I mean, that's not the plan at all. It's clear to me that Berhalter doesn't think that the standard three man midfields he's been putting out there can reliably move the ball through the midfield on a regular basis. And he's right about that. Berhalter didn't put Tyler Adams at RB because he's an idiot. He wanted to bring the RB into the midfield to create a 4 man midfield. In lieu of that, he's also tried to bring the RB forward as a winger, and bring the RW in to become thay 4th midfield (bringing the McKennie role back). He's tried pulling the striker back (with Zardes that's futile, with Jozy it worked pretty well). He's tried using the backs on both sides to help. There's plenty to criticize, but the plan isnt' "the 6 will handle it". Most of the machinations Berhalter has made to ensure that it's not just the 6 that will handle it. It hasn't always worked, but it's pretty clear Berhalter's constant attempts to create a 3-2-4-1 (or 3-2-2-3 or whatever you want to call it) is entirely because he wants more people in the midfield when we have the ball.
https://www.transfermarkt.us/cristian-roldan/nationalmannschaft/spieler/354792 you're just being dense or a troll now. to be perfectly clear, since i thought i spelled this out, he had played 770' across 15 games without a goal or assist. two of those he was a forward sub, which you denied at first but now accept to twist around back at me like it's unrelated. but if you check the list he is routinely listed as AM or CM and not DM (once). someone said he should be used at DM for creation. i am not creating a straw man. the point was argued and it is false. you're playing games because you act like you're not making the argument and then you trot out "well, but this is what he plays for seattle, and he produces some there," at which point you have clearly taken up the very flag you claim to have denied waving. face it, your argument boils down to either acting like he would get a fresh start at DM, like we can't count when he played anything else and how that went, or that club ball = country ball, the snob argument for seattle instead, which again the statistics place in question. as with forwards, you can have one stats line in club and another in country. since we are calling for country, country play matters more. i am sick of endless arguments of how player x who looks second or third rate should get yet another shot "because club ball." you got your first shot "because club ball." if you can't do anything with it, it's your problem, not mine. there is a long history of players who couldn't do the same thing for the NT as club. last, it's telling that i always note that he's not dominant on defense, and you while denying the stats argument are basically hiding behind offense as the justification for him playing a defensive spot. you'd think just once someone selling a DM would tell me I am wrong ABOUT HIS DEFENSE. if they were sincere at all.
i don't care what he says. i care what i see. the offense pretty obviously consists of the DM turns around to the backs and keeper, accepts the ball, either passes back or if he has time turns back around, and plays point guard. when we try to play the ball through the midfield, we routinely lose it. and we try that a lot. if we manage to get the ball past half field, either the DM will whack a ball towards the corner flag, or we will take the ball slowly side to side and then hit a pressured cross. you can wave your hands about backs as wingers and RB as mids but I see very little building up the wing. i like using space, probably since i played there. i would notice if we did it much. we don't. you're implicitly acknowledging there is a problem but then brushing it under the rug by claiming we have various techniques to adjust for it. he wishes. you're also driving right past where i am saying that a different selection or different formation would fix the problem. you instead seem to advocate using dysfunction and just putting duct tape on it in places. if that was working we'd already see it. a defense of the status quo works better when the status quo isn't a mess.
That is a good high-level synopsis of what we all see. After 14 matches what we should be focusing on is what is actually occurring not the explanations of the GB whisperers of the magic of the System tm!
"he has already addressed your concern" is more convincing when we win everything or at least look well-oiled in trying. far as i am concerned "Adams as RB" is basically he wants for reasons beyond me to leave Bradley out there as his QB 6, instead of the younger, better Adams, but we would rush Chicago HQ with pitchforks if he left him out. so he becomes a converted RB even if he looks awkward there, as CYA against the fans and media. this also reflects typecasting and blinkered thinking because wouldn't an interesting midfield, if you were obsessed with Bradley at 6, be Adams Bradley McKennie?? that is, if you were trying to maximize talent on the field, and not typecasting Adams as only one kind of player. after all i am quite certain Adams and McKennie would be better "two ways" than Roldan, Trapp, Mihailovic, Yeuill, or any of the other trash. but that's too outside the box for Mr. "Can't you see how deep he is for folding a RB inside."
the thing is using ESPN+ i can pull up eredivisie games, and funny, it looks kind of familiar. i also think he glosses over in describing a malfunctioning system that we then try to make up for by wing backs, or the RB plays more centrally as mid on offense, etc...........that makes all this a feature, and not a bug. so if we look like hammered horse hooey that is the plan?? i also think when I watch them (Dutch league) play that they just open it up, they aren't bothered with two way types, they are picking attacking players. last, to play the way they do, high tempo, knock it around, get up the wings, the eredivisie generally is indifferent to defense. the best team last year scored 119 goals. 119. Midtable down is littered with teams with GA of 70-80 in 34 games, some of whom score 60 or so themselves. scores last weekend are like 5-0, 3-1, 6-2, 3-2, 3-2. the teams in CL keep their goals down to MLS elite levels, but most of the teams spill 50+. a team allowing 68 with a -7 GD made the Europa play-in rounds. does that sound tailored for Concacaf? it actually instead sounds like what we did last time where we led the Hex in goals for but shed 13 goals allowed, couldn't routinely win at home, struggled for results away. not controlled soccer. recent Mexico results thus being no surprise. and funny but both of us hired new people. what you need is defenders who can defend and then mids who can do their job right. people keep dissing defenders for passing but if all they are called upon to do is feed mids 10 yard passes who can then run circles around people, they carry less of the weight. the problem now is we have them and the DM creating since the mids can't work the ball forward on their own two feet.
@juvechelsea you wrote we’ve won 1 of the last 4 Gold Cups. We’ve won 2. We basically trade it with Mexico. So your point that the lack of experimentation in the GC doesn’t even get us trophies is wrong.
i think i am tossing the copa america last cycle in with GC. my bad. but since 2014 we entered 4 tournaments, won 1, finished second once, finished 4th twice. if you go back to 2013, won 2 out of 5. we also won the 2017 GC followed almost immediately by not qualifying for russia 2018. the argument is essentially that they relate. they don't. teams don't take the second GC right before the world cup as seriously. while your basic numerical critique was fair, the implication drawn from it that experimentation fails, does not. our pattern the last two cycles seemed to be to go all out the first GC -- lose -- and then win the second one in the cycle experimenting. this reflected the desire to make confed cup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_CONCACAF_Gold_Cup_squads https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup_squads and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_CONCACAF_Gold_Cup_squads https://www.espn.com/soccer/match?gameId=466968 if you look at GC 2017, we brought in players like zimmerman, morris, lichaj, roldan, acosta, and gonzalez the keeper. the problem is by October we were back to Omar, Villafana, etc. to me GB followed the pattern of a conservative selection for the first GC of the cycle aimed at trophy hunting. it is conservative in the sense that there were few new players like boyd and consistency since roughly march. and my concern is he will go even more conservative next games (yedlin, brooks, but also adams) if he gets them healthy. my template would be closer to 2007 copa america which while superficially unsuccessful saw the integration of demerit, feilhaber, gomez, davies, kljestan, beckerman, clark, and guzan. 2009 gold cup we rostered mostly kids and that saw Holden get involved. that then built into the 2009 confed cup (second place) and 2010 world cup (round of 16) squads. i don't think we won a thing after 2007. but if you look at the cap numbers for the rosters there are often a bunch of 0s or low numbers. it did not hurt the end product.
i think if you look at the gold cup rosters, it was 2015 that flipped the switch towards it being first team playing to win. we tried to win the tournament so there would be no playoff for confed cup. 4th. we then tried to win the playoff. 2nd. we then sent another a team to copa america. 4th. that roughly correlates with 5th where we landed in hex. i don't understand how that became the template other than snobs like to imitate later klinsmann's mentalities even if it means going off the same cliff he drove off. the net result of all that focus on winning is you show up to qualifying with a midfield coming apart and a malfunctioning defense, which you didn't fix before because all those tournaments we needed to win encouraged reverting back to known quantities and kidding ourselves on what we had. net result of that is even when they do try some new people at GC 2017 they revert for qualifying. you're learning nothing new to help you. what did we truly learn from GC 2019??? cannon and long can play. about it.
Sure, it has nothing to do with the amazing Egg system or his esoteric philosophy, but I will NEVER get tired of the GC talk.Bringing in the illustrious Lions to win a B/C team Gold Cup, at the expense of developing some useful competition and depth for said Lions, was Brucie's finest (most hilarious) achievement. The fact people even bring up the '17 GC as any sort of remotely impressive accomplishment is even more remarkable (hilarious), however.
The poster took the time to put together some thoughtful and even handed analysis to refute that Trapp played well. He showed the good and the bad. The good was mostly routine stuff and there were too many mistakes that showed his long passing couldnt be counted on and he is defensive liability. No stats can refute that. He wasnt solid. He was in over his head. As for being able to do this with all the players, feel free to comment on Robinsons all touch video. I recall him getting beat to the end line, having a misclearance on the right side of the box, and getting caught on the ball near midfield. If Trapp was good, Robinson was great. If Robinson was bad, Trapp was really bad.
in terms of the upcoming games, i have previously advocated calling up two different teams for consecutive games. i would call a sizeable amount of players, run out an experiment for the easy cuba game at home, rest the starters, and then play the A team in Canada. i might even have the starters just go to canada, practice there, and wait. i would have as little overlap as possible so the A team is as fresh as possible. this allows you to both experiment and yet chase max points. if you have any confusion at all, canada already has 2 games in the can and only has to play 1 game this international break — us. they do not have a friendly scheduled the other date. so it also makes sense as a competition strategy just like tournament squad rotation. you want to be as fresh as canada for a road game given that a bad result would put us in a huge hole. hell, have an assistant coach the cuba game. send berhalter to canada with the starters. if you think about it, the order of the games creates a couva trap of sorts if you don't use your roster depth. heck, depending how you handle it, even the travel is wear and tear.
sorry but if people are paying attention you can weed out players so easy on games starting fall 2018. robinson was responsible for a goal or two by brazil. brooks was responsible for goals against brazil and colombia. trapp was responsible for the jamaica and italy winners. dest was responsible for a big mexico goal. bradley was responsible for the mexico goal in GC. yedlin was responsible for the peru equalizer. clear out the trash. i do not care how many "all touch" videos you post if that is what really happens. robinson is about the only one on that list who creates in a statistically meaningful way, and that dates back to his first caps and hasn't shown up much lately. you have to produce that upside for me to have any confusion about what to do about your penchant for handing goals away. sorry but at some point people are going to realize we need productive -- not just positive -- touches, and then as close to zero goal costing mistakes as possible. i don't think i have seen this much excuse making for mediocrity since 1990. dominate your caps. then call back the dominant players. i am sick of people advocating for people on the basis they didn't trip over their shoelaces. how about, like, say, pomykal, they made you excited to watch them play?????? or like morales they look like they at least understand the intensity required???? people have been tough on arriola, weah, and sargent, but if we're being real they are more productive than the people we argue about. if you want to compete start calling the ones who get goals and assists and who have to make the fewest "how did they score that" excuses. really. effing. simple. you do that and it fixes more than half our problems.
Bradley has 3 assists in 2000+ minutes. Trapp has 4 assists in 2000+ minutes. If that is your QB you are waiting a looooooooooooooooooong time for a passing touchdown. You would be much wiser to ride your attacking specialists for offense -- let the 10s try to be 10s and select accordingly -- and then play someone at DM skilled at the position itself ie capable of wanton destruction. I SIMPLY CANNOT BELIEVE THAT IS OUR BEST PLAYMAKING OPTION IN THE WHOLE FREAKING POOL. IMPOSSIBLE. to compare to the player people are pretending this is like, pirlo in his one full MLS season had 11 assists in 2700 minutes. this is the difference between an assist every other or third game, and an assist every 5-8 games. surely people can grasp what it does to a team if your playmaker is that weak. and this is not even getting into, the teams we are trying to keep up with have actual attacking playmakers who score 28 and assist on 15 in MLS.
yes, so much of this is take out of context one side of their game, overrate their tangible contribution in that way, and then ignore their defense and how that nets out for us. mexico in the GC final is a perfect example. we got no goals from bradley but he was on the hook for one. that's -1 net for the pretense he helps us on offense, which did not manifest in that game. against that background, i'd rather zero out the position, get my defense, and then find my offense where i should, further upfield. and really, i think adams is multitalented and can probably contribute just fine.
So are you not going to play with any defenders? Everyone that has played has made mistakes and cost us goals.
this is the problem is everyone just uses their bs talking points to kneecap objectivity and return things to a muddle there are people who rarely get beat and don't cost us games, and then there are ones who are lucky to finish any game clean lumping it all together is basically nihilism
So, who are these guys who don't get beat we're leaving out? Is it just a list of the marginal guys who never get on the field when we play a game against anyone with a real attack?