I didn't see enough of Soto to make a decision about him. Forwards that make timed runs into the box need lots of repetition so teammates can pick up their runs.
You are starting to sound like @Excellency just listing games we lost that he was on the field, except of course, that panama 3rd place game at the GC that he didnt play in. The whole back line was shaky in 2015, as they were all relatively new. Can you remind us what Brooks did wrong against Jamaica and for that matter the playoff? While you are at it, what were his mistakes at the CA against top 10 teams in the world? While you are at it should probably acknowledge how much his play improved in the 2016 CA vs the 2015 GC. He definitely lost Marquez late against Mexico, checked his shoulder just as attacker was making fun on first goal and melted down late against CR. He is a young defender. If he didnt make mistakes, he would be a top 5-10 defender in the world. He progressed significantly last cycle and would expect him to be growing into his prime this cycle. Your desire to discard him seems crazy when there arent better alternatives, the alternatives arent tested, and early signs suggests that there will be growing pains for the new guys. If you think Long is going to be mistake free, then you are crazy. He should get chances as a backup to Miazga or maybe as a third center back, but as the oldest of the three and with the least experience, he has a lot of work to do to be a regular starter.
Yiterm. Any time I see easily the best, I assume I am going to dusagree. I'd take Mendez over Pomykal and Soto over Rennicks is a very easy decision. I like Pomykal a lot and think he is lucky to be in a good situation finally, but I think Mendez will be more valuable with u20s and MNT long ter.
I’m far away from the “need to replace Brooks to get better” camp but top 5-10 in the world without mistakes? He’d barely be top 10 in Germany
Players have to be judged over time and a preponderance of evidence. Taking a single game here or there to show a guy is great or awful simply doesn't work. Has Brooks had bad games? Yes. Has every other potential replacement also had bad games? Also yes. Has Brooks had stellar games against top competition? Another yes. Has his competition? That's a bit more fuzzy. Brooks isn't near a top 10 or whatever in the world center back. But, neither are any of our other options and Brooks is the most accomplished we have. With our limited player pool it is super easy to just go up and down the roster pointing out how this or that player is not good enough. We have less than 5 players good enough to be part of a globally competitive national team. So, not being good enough essentially just makes a guy like about 90% of the US squad they play on and if you get rid of them all we can't even field a team.
Personally, I think he gets overrated because so many people drool over a towering figure back there. But, size is as much a detriment as an advantage in many cases, despite how many people seem enamored of it. Those long legs leave some mighty big gaps when the ball is on the ground. A bit of height is nice in a center back, sure. But, after a certain point of diminishing returns you lose more in mobility than you gain in winning aerial balls. For my money, Brooks is past that point. Still one of our best players, but far from perfect.
I've listed his mistakes before. Colombia. CR. England. You just added Mexico. I am not going to relist them or accept that because they are not relisted in every post I make that my post is thus insufficiently supported. I think I've built a theory about 3-4 ways -- we have lost a lot of big games he was in, we have given up a lot of goals in games where he played, he in particular is responsible for many goals as shown on video -- and if you're not listening it's your problem. He is 26. That is prime age put up or shut up time. By 30 or even earlier players start breaking down and getting worse. Young is 20-23, and to me Pope and Dolo looked good from day one. I think you are avoiding accountability with the unverifiable argument that maybe in the future he rounds out. There is occasionally a Ching or Long who late blooms. But they usually went to college, grew into a build, or otherwise were not fully formed and in a professional environment. Brooks might grow a little as a player but be real, at 26 having been in various German club camps, he has received high end training and basically is what he is, for good and ill. And I am not ignoring the good -- I remember early on being impressed by some isolated games -- I am just acknowledging that you get the good days and the bad as a whole. I have him in my GC 23 if but because he hasn't been displaced yet. But I also think he should be challenged with other talent and have to emerge as the best option. I just don't think he plays well enough to be treated like some Dolo/Boca/Pope pillar of the team. I basically said only 2-4 players have earned that. I expect growing pains for a few years too. It's a rebuilding team, and I expect iterations of YNT, dual nationals, MLS up and comers, and foreign players, to push their way into the roster and lineup. It will only delay the process to give the wrong players permanence they haven't earned; the pain will last as long as their careers. If we are going to move forward you cannot fall in love with any set of players right now, at least beyond the very few who earn it every night out.
Also re Brooks, in the course of looking at goals by defenders, I noted that Omar has 3 goals, Zimmerman 2, and the latter's goals are in far fewer caps. Brooks over a long career has 3 goals. I don't think he has one from a game that counted since that world cup game, and that was as a sub. In terms of technical contributions, the defensive liability Robinson had 2 assists last season. It bears noting that most of these players aren't great defenders and there you get into this being a trade-off. Kind of like I thought GB's "slick" defense for Chile would likely crumble under real pressure against a good team in a good place. One of the problems with the current team is not enough specialists good at the core demands of their position. For backs and DMs I care more if they can defend than pass. For forwards and mids I want some offensive productivity, and wouldn't overstate their "Wondoesque" value as defensive chasers. There might be tactical value in particular games to players who can offer some such wrinkle "against type." An attacker who can chase when you have a lead. A defender who can get forward when you are losing. But cutting against type the whole game is not optimal strategy. That's let me hamstring the offense and play a weakened defense. I also don't understand to the extent GB plays slick backs and DMs for passing but then has less-slick front liners. If you are going to pursue a sports car, no sense putting a Miata engine in your attacking oriented Ferrari. Give me every Pulisic/Jozy/Green/Weah/Sargent type I can get on the field then. To play slick backs topped with Zardes Baird etc. seems contradictory. We seem tactically confused.
Last point, I think we have plenty of good 9 options other than Zardes, but let me put it this way, confronted with relying upon Robbie Findley and such rubbish, the smart response would then be to play Pulisic up top. As we did before when Landon and Clint were pushed up from wings to forwards when Jozy was hurt and the other options lackluster. Pulisic should be wide but if you are going to jack up my team to get scrubs on the field, screw you, play Christian up top, he will score.
There is absolutely no way you can convince be JAB isn’t one of our 2 best CBs @juvechelsea You do so by referencing a 3 year old game. And 2 friendlies against world class attacks. IMO the fact that this is what you could find is more of a compliment than an indictment. Brooks has 37(?) caps. Any other CB would rack up just as much or more mistakes. You say “brooks is 26 it’s put up or shut up time” but seem unwilling to let him try to put up. Also Long is older than brooks., and hasn’t accomplished even half as much. He has “put up” much, much, much less. “Teams score when brooks plays”. Teams score no matter who plays we aren’t that great. If we struggled to score would you blame our best attacker? Would you bench pulisic? Would you bench Adams if he had a bad game against Brazil and we allowed 4? What about it Adams had 5-6 bad games over the course of nearly 40? I personally wouldn’t. He’s young. But would you be here 3 years later referencing that game as proof he is not good enough?
What's counter-intuitive but true; our best defensive players will play in our most difficult and important games and thus will likely be on the field when we give up more goals. Our scrubs play against the dregs of CONCACAF and thus have what appear to be great records for goals against, but crediting them for mostly standing around just because we played against an opponent that never attacked isn't exactly accurate. Just anther reason why comparing players is far from an exact science.
I'm not buying that Robinson is a defensive liability. Not based on that one match. He got caught upfield a couple of times and burned by one of the best in the world.* Being caught upfield may have more to do with Sarachan's scheme as any deficiency of Robinson's. *Years ago we were playing Netherlands in a friendly. Our outside back got burned by a 21 year old winger. Afterward, people pronounced his Int'l career over. (it was Hejduk or Dolo, can't remember). The 21 year old winger was Robben and the outside back, whichever it was, went on to earn a hell of a lot more caps. Sometimes when a good/great OB is iso'd with a great winger, the winger is going to win.
My response is totally irrelevant to anything, but ..... in the lead up to '98, Ramos had been hurt, was not fit, and we didn't have much in the way of forwards. (McBride had not been revealed as McBride, if you know what I mean). I was advocating playing Ramos as a forward.
I honestly don’t think antonee is to great of a defender but he is definitely not as bad as people here make him seem. He looked like a good player, got torched by a couple of top 10 attacks in world football at age 21 and people are now writing him off.
Let's not even pretend he is a decent defender. Flinching at faked crosses like a schoolboy is not good at all. He is literally at the beginning of the learning curve on defense and there would be no guarantee someone lacking the knack now ever gets it. He had 2-3 games I can remember where he was getting tooled. He was competent in some other games but usually weaker teams or less pressured attacks. Thing is, a team trying to get back to a high level can't build around people who can't handle good teams and high pressure. That being said, if you looked at the numbers I ran a while back, he came out similar on GAA to Cannon or Yedlin. Like about 1.5 GAA, The numbers and gaffes are bad and might suggest moving to midfield. Would suggest a pure defender choice would lie elsewhere. But in terms of absolute liability, that was Sweat, and he is not much worse than some of the other shaky wingback options. But still a relative liability. The numbers suggested Lima and Lichaj. Adams would likely be good at RB but that may be a waste of his talents and not solve the 6. I would like to see Dest, Payne, Moore, some of the younger ones. Re moving him around, he is the rare "back who gets forward" who is actually productive in that sense. Had 2 assists last year. I think he would offer something as a wide mid or wide forward in a 433, or as a situational sub back when we were chasing a game and already risking a loss, and needed someone who could create and cross. The USMNT needs to get back to "players for roles" and get out of settling on so many players who offer both demonstrable upside but also massive downside. Used to be a few nightmares got you either moved around or canned.
Yeah, it's just to me the idea is to get as many good players on the field at one time as possible within a strong scheme suited to those people. Before I start running out mediocrity at key positions in what should be an all star team, I would be seeing how I can move around the better pieces to thwart having to do so. Only a fool of a coach goes down with the ship playing the same frustrating pieces in the same slots.
Actually, you're drifting towards making my point, which is I don't tend to remember Adams costing me games. I tend to remember positive contributions. You're trying to counter-factual that. "Well, what if x had a bad day." Thing is, one set of guys doesn't have those same bad days all the time. Look at the actual facts. I can remember Pope and Boca and Dolo occasionally getting outjumped or faked. I do not require perfection. I wasn't perfect as a college defender. I remember the times I got beat. But their gaffes were rare, the team generally ran a low GA, and I couldn't gather a mistakes highlights reel that would be very long at all. I remember the times I got beat in college because it didn't happen much. This is basically normalizing mediocrity. Before if you cost this team goals you got the hook. That is why this team was excellent. It has now become this snobbery bastion where reputation precedes performance. And guess what the results are......
But the problem is that a snobby version of your argument is that I should ignore the people who give up goals in big games and assume their superiority. Which is basically circular or assuming the premise. To me you have to give the other options with the lower GAs their chance to show that the low GA from an easier game might carry over to the bigger games. Otherwise, as I just said, you have basically made a circular argument or assumed your premise as a rhetorical device to protect an incumbent. The guy who starts should start again because he has started. He has done poorly but then can you prove your guy is no better? We'll never know, because the starter should start...... Also, there is an element of settling and second rate in assuming that the way it should be is shipping goals to big teams. Well, wave that off, that was Brazil. Anyone remember we used to win games against Spain? Brazil? Germany? This is back to a pre 1990 loser attitude. I also think you're pimping a false premise. We tied France. Beat Mexico. It is not a routine big game loss by a big margin to all such teams. We have actually varied results, even under Sarachan. OK, why did they vary? Take a look at who is in and not in those better results. I get y'all want to assume your premise and basically turn statistics into philosophical navel gazing, but I have an interest in finding players who pitch shutouts as opposed to excusing second rate results. I mean, if they are that great, where are their results? Their qualification? To me the most tell tale flaw in your theory is it's not like we're back from Russia quarters with a well oiled machine. If they were as worthy of incumbency as you suggest they should have the country resume to show it.
Brooks doesn’t have those bad days “all the time” either. You cited 3 games including one from 3 years ago. And you point to players with 5 caps and pretend that they won’t have bad days over the course of 37. there Is nobody playing the left side better than antonee. Lima is unfortunately just as poor defensively as antonee. Sorry but nobody we have holds up against the Douglas costas of the world You are just an extreme example of a sports fan that gets enamored with the unknown. You are the guy that always wants the garbage backup QB to come in because you are convinced he must be better than the starter. Otherwise we would be winning.
Players like Bradley used to get "dibs" because the team routinely qualified and they were usually the starters from the last team that, say, made the knockout round. Right now the game is we didn't qualify 2018 and the players who are holdovers from those historical teams were like spot bench players in 2014. So what is the record of success of a team built around you? This core took 4th in GC 2015, lost the regional playoff, 4th in CA 2016, and then missed Russia. Forgive me if I don't hand them the keys straight away but instead want to see proven results in the sorts of games we need to win if anything is going to change.