Let's do it then. I gotta leave now and won't be back till the kickoff time, can u take care of that matchday thread?
And risk an eternity of infamy and damnation? Not I. Edit: Maybe @Sebsasour or @Peretz48 has us covered.
Well, neither Weston nor Dest are overage. I'm not sure either Morris or Yedlin in would be considered an impact overage player. Which is kind of my point.
"Can you think of a single dangerous transition moment from the past half-dozen games? Can you remember a single time the US won the ball and then just immediately vamos'd into the attacking third? Neither can I." https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2019...s-one-job&_branch_match_id=712382458053928452
i would worry about making the olympics with makeshift reality before i started positing maximized rosters of everyone under 23 -- including the ones we have nominally "graduated" -- and overage who can't qualify. that would be a wasted exercise since, what, 2008? by my count we have 8 foreign based players on the current u23 roster alone, do we have their teams' commitments for an april 2020 release during everyone's seasons? if we really wanted to make it we would be laser focused on players of assured release.
Bradley gave up 2 points by his inability to trap a simple headed lofted ball. If he controls that ball and pass to multiple open options who were all calling for the ball the match is over. If time is running out, having a couple of players press the throw in and then the player with the ball is standard practice in the modern game That strategy forces the attacking team to launch a long ball which the defense usually wins 75% of the time. We pressed; they launched; we won the header at midfield which was lofted to a wide open MB90. Everything went according to the percentages; game should be over.
Morris is certainly better than any of the current U23 strikers. There's plenty of depth at RB that Yedlin wouldn't be needed.
Keep in mind clubs are not forced to release players for the Olympics, so Weah, Puli, Dest, McKennie and Steffen would be unlikely to be there.
Not meaning to beat a dead horse but I am curious how Stewart, as a practical matter, can act like a second Canada loss wouldn't matter. I've already raised a variation on this argument, but if we lose to Canada that's 2-5 this year against teams that would currently be in the Hex, with Jamaica GC semi and Costa Rica's camp cupcake unit being the only wins. 5 losses would be more than last time. 6 points with 3 games left, which in a theoretical hex would be CR away -- routine loss -- and then 2 games home and away with Honduras. 4 points last time. Total: 10 points, and that's being generous about Jamaica away (both games we split were home) or our CR home game (which was camp cupcake level sides). I mean, this isn't just an abstract game, it's a likely hex opponent. So is Mexico. So is Jamaica, potentially. You cannot blow off many of these opponents as, well, don't have to beat them, before you won't make Qatar. I think I argued the other day in a general way that you'd have to have a 2026 timeframe to survive this, but I think this analysis underlines where the proverbial "path to the nomination" with Berhalter simply does not exist. If the games next year simply played out just like this year -- not an unfair test -- we wouldn't make it. Rarely does the diverse schedule of a NT hand you this kind of fore-knowledge.** I don't understand ignoring it. **There is a reading of the leadup to the 2016 games where every time we played anyone any good we got our clocks cleaned. That the absence of upsets hints at something. This rings true at the moment just the same. Look at the teams currently in the hex positions. Who are we going to feast on? If you look around the table and can't figure out who the chump is, it's probably you.
Chicago House could just find a way to base qualifying for the WC directly on FIFA rank. I'm sure there are those ready for the sort of rational persuasion Chicago is famous for. Winning! eh?
Wouldn't make any difference. The clubs have the power to say "no" since the Rio Olympics and have used that power, even if it's just to keep the players around for pre-season games. Just look at the squads for the non-Euro teams in Rio: Neymar managed to be there by not going to the Centenario (for which FIFA forced release) as a special deal, but otherwise, the teams from Asia, Africa and South America were missing plenty of their best young players, some supposedly injured, some not even that. Argentina, for example, only got one of their youngsters from Europe released. Same with Colombia.
I was just on a run and passed the time by putting together my ideal lineup for tonight's match based on who's available. I can't say the thought experiment made me at all excited to watch; this is going to be a slog.
FWIW, Honduras and Costa Rica are topping their groups with plenty of MLSers (and even a USL guy, in Honduras), and Canada is going to field a bunch of them too, so it's not like this is a tournament full of Champions League players. Fielding lots of 'em pesky MLSers is no excuse. If Egg loses, it's on Egg, and he should be fried.
Agreed. I have made my thoughts about our shallow pool known (e.g. I don’t really think selection is a big problem as other players are at best marginal improvement) but he should be able to get two wins with the level of talent he has against these two sides. It’s inexcusable to lose to Canada twice in a row and he should be out immediately if that were to occur. I believed in Stewart but if we lose one of these and he doesn’t fire Berhalter it’s unreal.
Tactics+selection have been a huge problem. Sarachan got better results. The pool has always been shallow.
Best US players in the C'ship: Geoff Cameron, Duane Holmes, Antonee Robinson, Eric Lichaj, and Matt Miazga..
Tim Ream is posting a paltry 6.68 WS rating at 32 years old and is not a natural fullback. Antonee Robinson is posting a 6.95 and is 22. Matt Miazga is posting a 7.05 and is 24. Neither of the latter 2 are even on the team, while Ream is starting out of position at one that Robinson is natural at while being on the decline instead of the uptick.