Nations League A, Camp 1, Cuba/Canada, Oct. 11/15

You're supporting my point. (we haven't played bunker/counter in ages. We certainly didn't under Klinsmann or Arena). You distinguished Klinsmann's approach from the prior B/C.

So, where do you get off saying "The real story of this era is the change in mindset from one of reactive bunker-n-break soccer to a proactive possession-first, attack-second-defend third approach" when, as you note, we haven't played "bunker-n-break" since before Klinsmann?

 

Actually, if we look back, and I won't be doing actual research either, it is the opposite. You come into camp and you play or you are gone. Kellyn Acosta, Justin Glad, others who have been in Camp, didn't play, are not called back. Even if you get a minute, you can be called back.

Credit to Velazguez, but the only player that has been called into a camp, not play, and then go on to play in subsequent camps is Reggie Cannon.

There really has been no, "taste, then get in the next time". You are good enough or you are not.

 

Right. But if you can't win a home and home with the 4th team in the Hex, you probably wouldn't be in the Top 4 of the Hex.

 

Skipped watching the Cuba game. Told myself I'd watch the Canada game because it'll be more competitive.

Here it is game day and I'm still undecided. Fan apathy towards this program is real.

Hoping for a win and no injuries to our guys.

This game means more for Canada.

 

So true. We're cursed.

 

Absolutely Agree.

And, it just exacerbates the idiocy of unnecessarily waiting a year and a half to hire Jay's Brother.

JB could have been figuring out that Adams is a great 6 and Wes is a great 8 a year prior. He could have played Puli in various positions with them seeing what works best. But, here we are.

 

I think it is debatable. Beat out Curacao and Panama, or beat out Jamaica and Honduras. Unless you think you can also beat out Costa Rica for third, then you play the FIFA playoff either way.

It seems a toss up as to which is easier.

FWIW, I'm not sure about Costa Rica this cycle. But i think Honduras will be better.

 

the way it's being framed is misleading. as a practical matter, 6 teams (none of whom have played a WCQ to earn it) compete for 3 spots plus a playoff team. your odds are 50% and 67% respectively. everyone else, having played no WCQ yet, begins with zero guarantee of any world cup spots, and only 1 playoff spot for the team that wins a lengthy group and knockout process. 0% guarantee and like 2% odds of even winning the playoff.

the process doesn't even reward being 5 or 6 in hex, which the rankings cutoff tried to suggest meant something. the theoretical 7 jumps past them and plays 4. 5 and 6 play no further role. does that make sense?? not rationally. it makes sense as a sop. yeah, we will dump you out early but then hand you a 7 slot you shouldn't get that leapfrogs teams the "definitive" rankings had you below.

compare that with pro rel where 4 typically teams play-off around the margins, sometimes in the rising league, sometimes a combination of droppers and risers.

and the reward for winning that is not even a world cup slot but instead the 1/2 playoff.

worse, some act like this is some lasting innovation that incentivizes wins when it's probably instead a cynical patch someone had to cover the one world cup before the field goes to 48. if we have 6-8 slots are we still going to use this ranking crap?? worse, is this a half step to bifurcated qualifying for the 48, with perhaps in 2030, say, 5 or 6 slots gone to the elite and then a playoff for the last one? does this sound anything like everyone having the same road? or does it sound like the elite bought free passage and we wanted assurance 2018 is unlikely ever again.

fwiw i think the more important part here would be not so much identifying the obvious but the awkwardness at the margins where this cuts off. the people pounding the table for this are rahrah sorts who think we should play to win every game at any cost. OK, let's be real, are the US, Mexico, CR missing out on this??

no, it's more the arbitrariness among the marginal teams this system will punish or reward. haiti beat canada in a competition. do the ranks reflect that?? should one team that exited GC at the same time as the other advance instead, when they never played each other?? it's lame, it should be decided on the field and you may even have teams making it on rank ahead of teams they lost to, that didn't realize how other efforts would affect their rank. so the advocates are focused on the wrong teams to assess if this works, and they don't seem to see the absurdity of 6 vs 7 meaning the difference between 1 in 2 versus first place against the whole rest of Concacaf.

 

Yeah but if you go all the long way, after the C-CAF playoff, there is still the Intercontinental Playoff and there's a chance you get the #5 from South America.

 

I agree. If Johnson cannot be trusted to play Cuba, then he should stop being called.

Same thing for Lovitz. If he can't play against Canada, what is the point of him being called? If Ream is at LB tonight, against FIFA #75, then Lovitz should have played his last minute.

 

What is circular about the argument? I think we should pick players ignoring where they play, but if you are going to create some threshold, it should at least be a somewhere that has consistently created solid international players.

What have I said that Bradley would have disagreed with in 2010. He only took 4 MLSers.... LD and 3 fillers (Bornstein, Buddle, and Findley). He also selected 2 from Scotland, 2 from Mexico, 1 from Denmark and 1 from Norway. Berhalter hasnt looked at any players that are in countries like that.

I am sure there would be many different views of who were the best players. Just like I am sure Berhalter isnt calling in the best players. Almost half his rosters arent in the "best" 23.

Edit: why do you and Berhalter not want to call the best players? very curious as it seems very wierd to me.

 

Ya, but that is only a downside of you think there is any chance that Canada or the Sallies could finish third or better in the Hex. (I don't think there's a prayer of that). Check back when the Hex is done, and let's see where the 6th seed in the Hex finishes. Getting into the hex, qualifying directly, avoiding that playoff - that's a pipedream for Canada or El Sal.

 

There are plenty of clear upgrades out there. You and Berhalter just arent looking. It is just lazy.

 

I guess people will never care about facts for the Klinsmann era, The 2015 GC wasnt about putting the best players on the field to win. The first year of that cycle was spent looking for new players and moving down the roster giving guys a shot. The following were guys that started games at the Gold Cup but werent starters in 2014.... Guzan, Brooks, Alvarado, Chandler, Yedlin, Diskerud, Zardes, and Johannsson. Of those 8, Alvardo, Chandler, Diskerud, and Jonhannsson didnt play key roles in copa america the following summer.

 

In terms of your execution arguments, they are strained. Rewarding an experienced Crew guy for executing the system slightly better -- after years at it -- is absurd. A truly great player who knows the system should make the rest look inferior. if they are less talented and only grade out roughly the same on a system report card that they will know how to game, you are betting on the wrong horse. The guy with the same score who never played the system before should be given the job instead because he should scale up beyond the Crew player over time.^^ The player in the system already is playing as well as he possibly ever can.**

Yours is the logic where you go with a career .260 AAA guy aged 30, in his 5th year at AAA, over your first round draft pick aged 23 who is hitting a slumped .258 but working with the hitting coach, in his first season there. Anyone with a brain picks the second guy every time. The first guy is working every lever and still basically the same as the second one, who is just learning. Your system identified the second one as the future, and he's close enough that's your tiebreak.

Also, I feel like you're going about this backwards. My goal is maximum talent on the field. I might have experience in the system be a tiebreak among equally talented. But your way I grade out system and then only later look to talent?? That's precisely how you end up with a second rate team who on paper fit the system, but for real aren't that good. Baird, Trapp, Roldan, Bradley. That is the basic recipe to many GC upsets I can think of, is over-rating fit over talent and athleticism.

I'd also be curious if "reads" equates to "plays." I had college teammates who were technically brillliant and knew what would happen but lacked the ahtletic tools to do a thing about it. I want the guy who makes the athletic play, or actually turns smarts into tangible performance, not the one who reads it right but can't handle foot speed or otherwise gets beat.

Last, we don't objectively know where we fit in the region between 1st and basically semi level. Jamaica, Curacao, these were not hex teams. Panama wasn't a first team game. The risk of not just conceding first but assuming second or third is we don't know that for a fact and based on Curacao 1-0 might question. I have suggested scheduling Honduras and CR next spring because we need to know before we get to Hex what reality is. You're talking optimism when last cycle teaches that if optimism gets smashed 2 games into the Hex it may already be too late to overcome. Yours is not a riskless position to take.

^^I mean, most coaches I know would look for a hint of what you could do, and see a trajectory from there. You want the ones you see the future of. A team of experienced players grading out OK is plateaued and going nowhere.

**That you can teach a system makes you a coach and not a player. This is a running US confusion in recent years. There is no proof it actually plays out as better play. I instead see Bradley allowing goals which negates any experience value. For Bradley et al to be of value the camera shots of him chatting with kids on the sidelines need to translate to better results or us looking much better in the run of play. Otherwise you're wasting my time. I am sure many vets would love to hang around a cycle they don't deserve in exchange for the intangible trade off of chatting to kids who may or may not be getting a thing out of it. This is the basic plot to Bull Durham and you only keep your job if the teaching works or is needed, even in that movie.

 

Slightly off-topic (this whole thread is, so whatever), but why is Alvarado continually ignored now?

Seems he's captaining a top Liga MX side? He's still young. And while we have a bunch of good young CB talent, most of it seems to have stagnated. Isn't he worth a call over Ream/Gonzo/Zimmerman/etc?

 

They did a lot of cross word puzzles together???

 

If Sargent is better than Zardes, why would he need to "go out and beat him out"? This isn't high school.

 

i mean, if bradley and trapp are rubbing off why is mid the consistent team wasteland

all that stuff that happened against cuba was around the edges

conversely, a lot of better teams have gone right up the middle on us

 

No, I didn't say anything of the sort. I specifically referenced the Italy and Mexico wins as examples of games where we had a reactionary game plan rather than an assertive one.

 

I think evaluation can be done video/live and with the club team to a strong extent.

Camp time and starts with the national team are a resource. It comes at a cost. We can all argue about the cutoff, but I don't see value in a constant revolving door to give everyone a chance.

The costs are simple: reduction in cohesion of the team; lack of opportunity to try out another player; and the reduction in efficacy of tryouts at other positions.

On the last point, let's say we want to see a new CAM or a new winger. Putting a CF who doesn't know what they are doing actually reduces the effectiveness of that test - running out 11 new guys, as some have proposed -- means that none of them get a fair test.

And even if you have players tested with roughly the A team, how many matches is a fair test? One match with three days of practice seems unfair and a poor evaluation tool.

If we take striker, my issue is more how slowly Sargent has been phased in rather than a lot of mediocre options haven't been tried out. I'm not happy with Zardes ... but I guess it's just what alternatives I'd try is different than most.

 

What happened to the USMNT in 2018 again?

 

i think it's fair. it's a production position and midfield is underwhelming at the moment. he needs to be able to put up numbers or we will stutter. what will separate him from zardes is being 4 goals in 11 games, 5 goals in 12, instead of 10 goals in 50 or whatever. or out there setting people up. on the ball more often. beating players to the sliding balls he kept whiffing.

now, it's misleading if he's required to do better than second best for the bench. this is what is lost in many "vs" arguments, is you only need to make the 23.

right now sargent is at 3.3 games per NT goal and zardes is up between 5-6. the only thing i really need to see is a good game against a good team and a goal. zardes to me even lacks that. i honestly need to see him a little more tough and dominant than he was against cuba. mckennie imposed himself.

i say this because even if i like his skill it has to translate to more dominant play like i think it should. or wood could come back. or jozy involved. or soto will be breathing down his neck. you could remove zardes from the equation, as we rationally should, or fire GB, and he still has to win the job at one of our more talented positions. i don't consider that guaranteed.***

***One thing people confuse on my fandom for experiment is that you then grade the experiment and only bring back the excellent. That I would trend towards what I see as upside players doesn't mean I would assume upside. But what I see as the problem is Holmes could look good and he's still not back. I am for giving chances, but rewarding performers. sargent should be no exception or you are just continuing the same "assume your conclusion" issue with new names and younger kids. prove it.

 

Do they have better strikers than us? Possible.

 

Not just the fans but guys like Arfield, Cavallini, Davies, David and Borjan wants to play against the best, not take the easier routes because their clubs wouldn't have it. They brought this winning mentality to the National team.

I assure you the goal is the Hex. Herdman himself said that Canada had little to gain from playing low ranking Caribbean nations and Central Americans nations