I prefer most Spanish coverage. It's much more entertaining. It's more fun to watch and the analysis is typically more interesting.
I often have watched US matches in Spanish but my Spanish is only OK and they often blast commentary so fast that I miss parts I would really like to hear and understand. US English is as bad because they talk so much, and say so little, that it is hard to actuality follow the match. My preference is for the English (Premier league) style of commentary where little is often said except who in playing the ball and what is being done all delivered in a calm cool manner. I do NOT like overly excited announcers. BTW: I've noticed that there are a number of really good commentators in the Champion's league matches from Europe with the exception of the French. They get so excited that it seems they are financially invested in the match.
LOL. I watch the Champions matches in French, because that is my favorite style. Of course, my mother was French, my dad Argentine, so it's probably a cultural thing that I prefer Spanish and French over other languages. PS: The worst to me is the British style. It makes me fall asleep. They only get excited when their clubs/NT play, otherwise they narrate as if they were enduring the game, no matter who else is playing.
Only problem with the minimalist style is when a radio feed uses the TV commentary and you get stretches where it's just a guy saying names, or even worse dead air except for crowd noise. That happens fairly often on Sirius XM.
Actually, IMO, the best experience is watching with no narration and just the crowd noise. But that only works when the image is good on a fairly large screen, otherwise one has no clue who is who.
Fine, let's play this game differently. Is Cannon a better Right Back than Dest is a Left back? Yes! Is cannon a better right back than Dest? Probably not. Does Dest have a far better upside given his age and current playing status? Yes. ----- The USMNT is bad because US Soccer, admin and coaches make poor decisions all along the decision chain. This is just one of many. One of the more obvious ones. Nevermind SuperRichard, his friends call him Super... for a reason. I simply refer to the results from the last 6 years as evidence of poor decision making at every level.
Question: What are the qualities that you see in Dest that make him better at right back (as a right back) but at the same time worse at left back than Cannon is at right back? I am assuming that your statement was for present level and not a projection.
Very few if any players can switch right to left effectively at a defensive level. Wingers I think transition far better because the objective is clear, cut in and shoot, go wide and cross. Fullbacks rely heavily on the given foot to give them leverage and focus. Timmy Chanlder, I believe just stopped caring about the USMNT because he kept getting switched to the left despite having the best early cross in US history. Dest is a young player learning to play RB at the highest level...just in time for the international break where he has to defend and attack the opposite way. I don't think it is realistic to expend him to succeed. The results showed that. Once Cannon moves to Europe and stops playing in the Bud Light league, I'll believe he can defend at an international level.
Thank you for your response. The reason I asked is because I felt Dest was very good with the ball. His weakness was one on one defending and, while I agree with much of what you say, I am not so sure I feel his defending would be better than Cannon right now.. On the other hand I think Dest has shown enough offensively that I consider him better than Cannon offensively. Put together, I would expect Dest to be better offensively but worse defensively on the right. My guess is significantly for both.
When you are young confidence and routine matter. I am pretty sure I'd put him at RB and forget about that position for the next 10 years
I can't argue with that. he has a great deal of upside. Barring injury I can see him holding down the position for the foreseeable future. Of course there is still the question of him deciding to play for us and not wait for Netherlands.
And it is not as if we haven't seen this with almost every coach. What we have learned is that you can move ANY player to RB and he can succeed, but nothing else. Remember Eddie Lewis? Excellent cross, perhaps world class. let's move him to Left Back, then watch the US concede 2 goals on that side. Let's try Beasley, perhaps the best combo of defender and attacker we've ever had on the left...let's play him at RW at the WC. I don't know how many CM's Bob Bradley wasted on the wing, I mean CL and PL CM's had to play LW or RW and they looked pants. We see this over and over and over again. I even started a thread that basically addresses this one fact: US coaches don't coach enough at high levels to learn how to coach at high levels and once they realize they are making mistakes, it is far too late to adjust effectively. Jessie Marsch and David Wagner are basically our only two qualified US coaches at this point.
Of course it is one issue having a player playing at LB that could be better elsewhere, but it is another issue having no real options. Right now it looks like we have some future talent that may change that equation (Robinson, Bello..) but until then any coach is left with an imperfect choice. One advantage that Dest has is his Dutch background. To my knowledge, the Dutch developmental system focuses far less on specialization at the younger age groups. As a result, their players should be far more likely to handle a change. I do agree, however, that changing sides can be very problematic if only for the reason that it forces the player to think more about his positioning (rather than automatically being in the right spot). The more thinking the player has to do the more errors that will likely occur.
If anyone was asking the question: How do you alienate and rid yourself of the best right back prospect in US history? The answer is: start him at left back behind an MLS lifer. There are so many other fascinating questions that we've answered in the last years: How to miss a world cup despite playing in the easiest region in the world? How to slowly erode competitive national league players from the USMNT? How to alienate foreign prospects and latin players in order to play inferior MLS/USA! players? How to successfully nepotize one of the richest football associations in the world? All the answers lead to the answer to final question of all: How to manufacturer, dollar for dollar and pound for pound, the worst soccer team in the world? Don't kid yourselves, that is exactly what the USMNT is.
I'll make a shot at the worst starting lineup you can make from this group... Arriola Zardes Baird Aaronson Trapp Roldan Lovitz Zimmerman Long Cannon Sean Johnson And I'm guessing this will be closer to what Berhalter will roll out than the best.
Also... remember when there was a lot of chatter at first about how obviously this is just him getting started and he's calling in the same lame players because they know his system and they're just place holders until others get called in? Yeah, how long are they considered place holders. Look at that roster and let it sink in that these are not place holders, this is what our coach thinks is his best squad to play a competitive game with. That's the reality.
I never cross post but going to do it here.. you know when i'm mad that shit has really gone off the rails... As one of biggest USSF apologists on this board... this roster is so disheartening. SOBERING FACT: exactly 1 year from now we will be on our THIRD game of the Hex. Think about that. 1 new person... ONE? There is zero impact on qualification for us on these 2 games, why not try something that could pay off 2-4 years from now. This is the only reason i can think: Gregg truly believes this group will be our team in Qatar. The Hex starts in a year, that team needs to be 90+% locked in and prepared for WC. If he brings in new guys for the Hex then he'll have wasted this whole year of team development.
Also, as far as I can tell from the constant disorganization on the field, they clearly don't know his system. (Not that I think any player can really learn to play his system effectively in the short amount of time he has them in camp.)
I like Gregg. But unfortunately for him, the question just changed from "Can Gregg coach at this level?" to "Can Gregg coach so well that it's worth the risk of losing Sergino Dest?"
Don't be a fool. This system wins matches. It conquers leagues. It slices. It dices. It operates its own hedge fund. What is really strange to me is how politicized this move has been. Almost from the outset it has been marketed almost like a political campaign. "Let's deflect the coach with a system, let's deflect the player selection with adapting to the system, let's deflect relationships of CEO and Coach with system tinkering..." it really reminds me of what happens when a solid company is bought out by an investment bank. They maximize profits by cutting costs and bringing in 20 MBA's who do nothing but focus on cash rather than product. They then put out major marketing efforts and...in the long term, ruin the product, kill the company and sell it off. Who's buying?
Yes! I mean, c’mon, it’s Cuba and Canada in a meaningless tournament. Why not try out Ledezma, Llanez, Ferreira, Soto, Miljevic, and Mendez?? So what if they aren’t killing it at their club team. Mind you, no one really is right now anyways. So, why not try out the players with the most potential? Give them some experience and let them know what’s expected of them to progress.
This gets back to our discussion about upside potential. We've got a bunch of low ceiling MLS players who are making every camp and we're not integrating a lot of high upside players. I would be ok with keeping unproven guys out of the team if there were high quality players in those spots but that's not the case here.