There are a few roles that age better. ST, Regista and GK. However, we’re not talking Pirlo or Xavi we’re talking Bradley. He’s not a generational talent like Pirlo that you build your entire team around him into his late 30’s.
Central midfielders, especially in the 6 position, along with CBs and goalkeepers, usually play until a later age than any other field position.
I'm of the opposite philosophy: failing at the high level doesn't mean you'd have succeeded even at the low one. There's success or failure, not failure tempered by giving it a good try.
ESPN just came out with their first 'Big Board" of the new cycle. Nice to see not everyone has lost touch with reality. http://www.espn.com/soccer/club/uni...lisic-in-starting-xi-if-world-cup-began-today
Swap McKennie w/Adams and we got a deal. Miazga + Brooks against teams like Spain or the South Americans would be a disaster, though.
Yeah, I think one thing Berhalter has right in McKennie more forward of Adams. Of course, I'd have them as the 8 an the 6 respectively instead of the right back thing, but I see McKennie playing a more attacking role than Adams as reasonable.
No I haven't but I am driving in and meeting a buddy for lunch and a couple of beers before the game and he takes his kid to basketball training. No time for a tailgate so I haven't investigated any.
Pragidealist, Are you willing to answer this and set expectations before the matches? What are your expectations for these games? Is there anything that could happen that you would find alarming or is your take that there’s no such thing as a bad outcome given your admiration for the setup? Also, how many long passes do our registas need to have to unlock the width? I know you said that they would probably have 8 or so but what if it’s lower?
Eh it depends. If the line is sitting deep then straight line speed is less of an issue. Look at Croatia. They sat deep and countered. Vida and Lovren are both slower CBs. Their tactical set up was one that didn’t expose them. You put them in a system like Pool plays and Lovren turns in poor performances left and right because you ask him to play a high line and defend space. Brooks and Miazga are both adequate when it comes to straight line speed. The real issue is both will struggle with shifty or quick forwards if their asked to defend them in space. To negate that ideally you pair Brooks with someone in the player mold of Cameron. However, there are other ways to set up your side to play with two CBs like them. Issue is I don’t think we will be set up like that.
Generally agree, except for Miazga. Time will tell. On the MB question: when did you last see him in a USMNT game with a full set of teammates as broadly good as those who will be in the next two matches? The answer is probably 'never.' That fact makes an enormous difference with respect to how everyone, including MB, will perform. I fully expect him to do well, if given the chance. If he doesn't, then that should be the end. And, don't tell me he's had too many chances already; the team sucked over the past several years and it was not primarily because of him. It's a game of 11, not a game of 8 plus a few place-holders.
This will sound bitchy, but I find amusing irony in your choice of words "lost touch with reality" when the graphic, by it's own label, is presenting something not based in reality. To address the topic of Berhalter's player selection more broadly: he has been hired on a 3-year contract. I don't know how many posters here work on long-term projects (say, building a bridge) as part of their day-to-day lives. But if you imagine that the start of a 3-year process should look just like the conclusion, only sooner, I suspect you don't have a lot of experience as a decision-maker in that context. When Berhalter says of his deployment of Adams (words to the effect of): "it may not work, and if it doesn't we'll adapt," I get the sense that many of the loudest critical posters hear cluelessness or JK-like arbitrary-ness in that expression. That's not what I hear.
I’m sorry... but no. Let me help you out understanding why even with your points. People are rightly pissed about the roster. -we just wasted a year. -we just missed a World Cup partly because of poor player selection. -when building a bridge, do engineers try putting everything in the wrong place first, to see if it works? -speaking of the arbitrariness of JK I think GGG relates to him with his seemingly pin the tail on the donkey version of setting lineups. -there have been previous cases of coaches that have shown MLS biases and people are wary of similar things happening. I mean honestly did we forget Couva? That we took forever to hire a u23 coach? Why are we supposed to assume the best and wait to see what happens when every time we do that with the USSF it backfires? It reminds me of last cycle man, just relax there is time! I’m sorry but the fact that time exists does not excuse making decisions like these.
Better than most, but they really need to switch Adams and McKennie. But, better would be to move Puli to the middle and play Adams & Wes as a double pivot.
Some do. Those who actually age well. Most don't. Mikey is very much in the latter category. He has not aged well. To refer to what Pirlo did [separate from the initial talent level, and just emphasizing the drop off from age 28 to 31, for example] and to then pretend this holds for MB is to have us ignore the evidence of our "lyin' eyes"
Some do. Those who actually age well. Most don't. Mikey is very much in the latter category. He has not aged well. To refer to what Pirlo did [separate from the initial talent level, and just emphasizing the drop off from age 28 to 31, for example] and to then pretend this holds for MB is to have us ignore the evidence of our "lyin' eyes". ....ok, any more posts that warrant this response?.....
I would assume that, when CEO's take over from a previous regime, they don't just trot out the same ideas that doomed the company before? MB, Trapp, OG, Zardes. All holdovers of the previous regime's failures.
Regarding MB, I have said many times in the past that the coach (whoever) should have been looking for either his replacement at some point or at least giving some playing time to others. I was continually shot down by BSer's saying that what were we to do, no one had challenged his position. Well, guess what...number 1, a challenger needs playing time; and number 2, we now have several contenders who are not being played in a position that could knock MB, and by extension, WT, out of their playing roles with the team. Now what will people come up with as an excuse to continue to play a much older MB?
I would also assume if they had a star salesman they wouldn’t move him to HR so that an 80 year old who can barely speak anymore can have all the good leads.
I hear a guy trying to reinvent the wheel when we have a teenage 6 that's probably the best 6 in the history of the program, and instead he's tinkering w/trying to trot out a guy whose five years past his sell by date or a guy whose never been good enough to begin with. There's no way to twist this garbage into something sensible. Full stop. I and I imagine most of us aren't fools. Tinkering is kinda the point of year 1 and 2 of a cycle. Figuring out your best 11, and your deep 35+ or so, figuring out how you can roll out the team w/o losing the strength of the side regardless of opponent. I wouldn't have a problem with this idea if there was anyway in which it made any sense at all, but it doesn't. There's no way to look at it where the decision is a net positive. If you tell me, well, we've got a couple of teenage DMids like Durkin etc and if they continue to evolve and somehow by some miracle are more or less in the same universe as Adams (not the same player obviously, but I love Durkin's long term upside, for instance), then I could get along with that. If he's talking to Tab and Tab's saying, "Look, I've got like 3 kids coming up, and while they aren't Adams, they are incredibly good, better than anything we've seen in decades other than Jermaine Jones..." then I can get with that. The problem is, that's not whats happening. Instead, he's trying to finesse Adams into a position so he can get his comfort players who aren't remotely good enough onto the field, whether it's past it Bradley or never had it Trapp. That is beyond idiotic. At least w/the kids coming up idea, I could see it as forward thinking, but that's not his reasoning, instead, his reasoning is getting the former captain and his veteraness on the field, and his love affair with Trapp. <Words I can't type>.
I don’t disagree. He isn’t close to that level and his current level isn’t better than others now. We also generally shouldn’t build a team around a single player no matter how good they are.