Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by Sebsasour, Jul 8, 2019.
But does an appearance in the actual Olympics cap-tie?
His point was that if you play in a youth tournament and, at the time you play in said tournament, you're not eligible to play for another nation, then you can never play for another nation--even if by parentage you are eligible to receive citizenship of another nation. It's a legitimate point.
Not if their a duel nat.
JJ was actually the first one-time-switch case. Jones was actually cap-tied to Germany until FIFA changed the rule to allow a one-time-switch for dual nationals who had been cap-tied at the youth level.
Of course you have to have held the other nationality at the time you were youth cap-tied in other to make the switch, a point that vitally important.
I'm curious: How many here think we would have won the Gold Cup if Sargent had been brought in and subbed in during the tournament so he'd be ready for that role v. Mexico?
I do, for one, altho I can't be sure if he'd be throttled by "the system".
The guy has 2 goals in 7 caps, to say there's a greater than 50% that he scores against Mexico seems to be a bit of a stretch
I think the comparison is whether he would have had a better chance than Zardes. And last I checked the math, 2 in 7 is a greater chance than 10 in 51.
Hopefully, Sargent gets off to a flyer to start the B1 season. He could be useful in Olympic Qualifying, if available. As for the GC, he did nothing in the Jamaica friendly to move the needle in his favor. So why not then let him go to his club to try earn a significant role with his club team? Unlike McKennie and Pulsic, he hadn't been getting big minutes.
The Sargent vs Zardes meme reminds of the Green vs Donovan nonsense of the '14 WC selection. JK brought Chris Wondolowski, but people wanted to focus on Green. Berhalter brought Boyd, Morris, Arriola, Lewis, and Roldan(who was used there in the Mexico match) to use as wide players. Most competent coaches bring 3 strikers. Why couldn't one of the 5 wide players have been dropped to bring a 3rd striker?
Why bring Daniel Lovitz, instead of using Long to cover the LB/CB role? Lima, who is player better LB at club level, could have been used in an attacking leftback option.
There is always room on a 23 man roster, no doubt. In the end, 3G lost the tournament when he submitted the roster. Hopefully he got something useful out of it. Not sure why he has to learn things by repeated failure that most of us can see beforehand Haha!
Sargent was on the roster and then was off, irregardless of the Jamaica game. I haven't figured out exactly why, but Lletget's injury forced 3G to take Roldan instead. Had nothing to do with fitness, camp execution, learning the role, or getting more time with WB.
my point is i watched what was done to robinson by u20s, and i've seen miles robinson play pretty good as a defender. i think dest replicates rather than fixes our wingback issues. i want people who can play their own position well, and if he is not a pure defender, then whether he can double as a wing mid is his problem.
Who’s ready for the narrative about how this game is important because it’s going to be a chance to get revenge after losing to them in the final
Or we should change our system to get our best on the field in roles that suit their skills.
As a former wingback and wing my response is going to be, when Brazil shows up you are either capable of marking or not. A lot of the System TM talk seems to assume we have the tactical initiative, can dominate the game, and accordingly can field players suited to our tactical superiority. If we are getting pinned back or countered on, it doesn't matter if A. Robinson or Dest are delightful going forward, if we are stuck back and need to defend effectively.
I think we have been getting killed trying to field attack oriented wingbacks for a full cycle now, who couldn't really play defense. We already tried your thing. So my theory is solidify the back and then maybe field mids who are more attack oriented. Instead of this oddness of backs to go forward and then DMs in midfield to try and cover them.
The importance of this game cannot be understated.
You have taken the hook. In what ways are Roldan and Sargent redundant? When GB was in his Boyd snit at the end of the tournament, he subbed in Roldan and a LB chasing Mexico. Beyond them he had a pile of backs and DMs to play.
The basic facts are he failed to roster enough attacking mids to handle those subs right. Basically Pulisic and McKennie.
To me it was as bad as the unit Arena dressed down in Trinidad. His team sheet frightened me because it was basically Dempsey and scrubs. Stalemate unit not holding the tie. Once we were down I was very concerned we lacked the firepower to reverse it.
GB is slightly more complicated, he apparently had it in for Boyd but did manage to roster him. But, still, if we get to the final and are down 0-1 and you look down the bench and can't find a forward you like, meh to Sargent was surplus. He did have Roldan to use, but Roldan started the tournament as a mid and we had several players of that type redundant on that bench. He overrates what Roldan means. I could understand the rhetoric if he produced like Arriola, who I think could play both slots. But he has less productivity than backs we rostered. Long had more impact than that. Come back and score like Arriola or Pulisic and we can talk about you are so valuable as a utility guy we can leave off a technical forward.
Rumor is Boyd had a hamstring injury and they didn't wan't to ruin his chance of moving to a new team by talking about it. Until we know whether it's true or not it's hard to argue whether he was ignored or punished at the end of the tournament. Of course as usual we will probably never know because it's too hard for any journalist to actually ask Boyd that question.
Not sure if it would be prudent for Boyd to admit he hid an injury from his then-future, now-current employer.
I’ve played some wingback myself and yes you need to be able to attack and defend but we don’t have to approach every game with the same plan. That’s why we carry 23. We could easily add a CB and play a 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 that ends up more of a 5 backline.
That "oddness" of being able to have more skilled players join the attack is what leads to goals. Of course, they also need to be able to defend.
Or Egg. Or Earnie. Maybe they should ask Cordeiro.
Well, Sargent lost out to Altidore and Zardes, so the Jamaica match and the other factors would've had an impact.
But the main issue here is Berhalter only brought 2 strikers. Lletget's injury as an explanation makes little sense.
I would put Morris as a quasi striker also which makes it interesting. Morris was offered a contract by Bremen and signed with Seattle instead while Sargent signs with Bremen makes the full team and even scores a few goals and yet gets beat out by Morris. Not apples to apples but a bit funny.
you have two glitches in your argument. first, there is a level at which incompetence at your basic task costs us results. robinson and brazil. brooks and cr. yedlin has cost us two late equalizers getting back doored. so this is not an "and also...." issue. you can either do the job or not. when you fail to do so it may cost us a tie or loss.
second, with the exception of a. robinson (2 assists in 7 caps), the tangible production of our "go forward" wingbacks tends to be modest or nil. tim ream, promoted by some for his passing, has 1 goal and 2 assists in all these years. produced nothing in gold cup. yedlin's last assist was July 2017. so you do something for a trade off where they don't "trade" in the productive side of the field as much as you'd think.
so often enough what happens is we talk up some defensive liability for their ability to go forward, they tangibly cost results, they produce little in return. if you net that out it is net negative. in contrast, the unit run out for gold cup allowed 2 goals in 7 games. long then had that many goals by himself.
having firmed up that defense, i no longer need as many two-ways or 6s to cover them up, and i can field more pure attackers. and pure attackers tend to have a more demonstrated value in productivity terms. in plain english, i'd prefer we be picking mids who specialize in goals and assists, for that job, over half-baked defenders on the theory they get something going forward, which doesn't show up in their numbers, and risks goals the other way.
rather than pick hybrids who give up some offense for defense or vice versa, i say, go hog wild on offense, and then rely on the back 5. but then those back 5 need to be defensive studs.
also, some of the specialist defenders who do their job right, like long and zimmerman, can get headers on dead balls. long had 2 GC goals. zimmerman has 2 goals the past 2 years. so i am not giving up on offense from the back, i am arguably swapping out one form -- linked with doing their jobs -- for a less mathematically justifiable version. so instead of betting at the track on whether yedlin gives up more than he gets, i play someone who does their job and then take the odd header goal bonus.
last, i feel like at least some of this is advocating for a dutch style 433 and when is the last time holland won a world cup? and then for people advocating that kind of formation in the dutch style people are oddly quiet about the hardhat mids we line up. if you want that then you should really sell out on offense all over and want many of the pure attackers i have been suggesting eg Holmes Gall Green Weah Sargent. To me many of our other choices are compromises chosen for their ability to defense their position more than pure attack. You wouldn't choose Roldan and Zardes to attack. You might to chase.
you're buying into something when you call Zardes a 9 and then put him and altidore over sargent. i think it's dubious to call him a dedicated striker in which case the argument craters. i also think it's dubious to treat roldan like a "slash forward." recall berhalter is justifying that decision on the idea roldan doubles as a forward. that decision then has tangible results when we are down a goal to mexico and he puts in roldan instead of boyd, and treats it like he has already subbed two "forwards" in. i think the next goal that "forward" scores will be his first.
similarly, the choice to play bradley as 6 catches him out in the final.
other thing being we had a bunch of trapp mihailovic roldan types and not enough real offensive subs. i therefore agree with the ones saying the die was cast with the roster, in this case in the sense that the boxes he chose to put people in, the false sense that certain guys had utility value, the old farts he played, this all led to the result. so you have to de-program yourself from his categories and get back to, what makes normal sense, and then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. jozy and sargent at 9. if zardes is on the team it's wide. most of the mids shouldn't make the team and we don't need the redundancy. bradley gets cut or is a bench option for leads.
No I agree with you. I think Boyd had a small injury and that was why he didn't play. But we will find out.
I meant by surplus, that on a 23 man roster you have room for anyone. I didn't say Roldan pushed off Sargent, I believe that is what 3G said. That Lletget covered the wing and an 8/10 spot. Therefore, he could bring Sargent. But when Lletget got hurt, he had to bring Roldan and Lewis? Like I said, I think that is what he said. Subbing Roldan in on the wing in the final kind of suggests it is all poppycock. Certainly, not trusting Lewis with one minute means that selection was a real problem and should have been Sargent.
I agree that he looks down the bench and sees Lovitz, Omar, Djorde, Roldan, Lewis, and Zardes as possible attacking subs. That was the difference and how he lost the tournament on June 5th.