I guess I'm more optimistic that this roster is a positive step in the right direction for Egg than most. I think @gunnerfan7 is right that the USSF and Egg have not earned the benefit of the doubt and calling them out should and will continue to happen. I'm still troubled by a few things but encouraged by more. Things I'm discouraged about include his comments about Bradley, Trapp, and the 6 position in general and the LB's. Things I'm encouraged about include the youth call-ups, Morales, and a willingness to at least give lip service to the idea that some of the problems we all see exist. As far as I'm concerned, Morales and Lichaj are the two overlooked old guard guys that should be in the fold. Both play positions of need at relatively high levels, are consummate professionals, and in my opinion, could improve the team immediately which is what you need from someone pushing 30. Morales is getting his shot. Hopefully Lichaj is next. Besides those two, bring on the youth.
I think criticism is fine, but the general hate and anger towards USSF has been extended to Stewart and Berhalter ... even though they had no real part in the past. The problem with that is it creates a lens which reinforces the negative aspect. People ignore what Stewart or Berhalter is doing right (or even Cordeiro) and focus only on what they like, reinforcing their negative view over and over. People tend to ignore data that questions their belief and only look at data that reinforces it. Hate Berhalter? Well, then focus on Corey Baird of all people. And then make proclamations like he's afraid of youth. And completely ignore that this is a young roster. I appreciate that you can have a balanced POV. But there's so much discussion in this very thread that is kind of insane. I have no problem with logical criticism. Hell, I have no problem with self-aware illogical criticism! But there's so much blanket criticism that seems like it would be written regardless of the call-up. And so much of it is irrelevant to the facts or any logic.
Yeah, only speaking for myself here, but I was personally extremely disheartened when Cordeiro was elected president in February 2018. That was really our last, best chance to make real change to the USSF. I hate these systems that essentially rig things so that the best politician who will best represent the entrenched parties will always win. I thought Couva would change that. It did not. Gregg Berhalter is an extension of that problem. We had international guys reaching out to us to come be our coach like Tata and Lopetegui who couldn't even get an interview. Gregg was not the most qualified coach but he got the job. That really, really frustrated me. His first few camps did nothing to inspire me. Building a system around Michael Bradley who is another child of the entrenched USSF interests really got me going. Gregg acted like the smartest guy in the room despite washing out of Europe and coaching a fairly middling MLS team. The Gold Cup similarly failed to inspire me but I started to see what he was trying to do. Do I think he's making all the right decisions? No. However, I am a fan of the USMNT so despite all my criticisms of which this is just a short list, I can look at this current roster and say that it is a noticeable improvement and he is trying to fix some of the most glaring issues. He called in many of the guys I wanted to see, missed a few, and a few others pulled out. I said after the Gold Cup that I would start to lose hope if we saw the same team that played the Gold Cup come back in September. We didn't. He is using this window fairly well as far as I can tell. Hopefully, he does the same in October and especially November and we can go into 2020 feeling like we have the makings of a team ready to compete at a high level.
I don't think Cordeiro is going to bring drastic change (and he hasn't) but I do think he's brought needed and positive change. I'm not going to wade into pro/rel here; if that was your bag, then I understand the disappointment. But in most other ways, he's a vastly better choice than most of the reform candidates. What US Soccer needed more than anything was to move on from being Sunil's own little private fiefdom. For the money that runs through there and the responsibility that was there, there was remarkably little infrastructure, human resources, any sense of professionalism or even a standard of resume for holding a job. It was Sunil's boys club from all accounts, and while he did much for US Soccer, to grow, organizations need to build real infrastructure. As much as I dislike Goldman Sachs' ethics, that's a professional organization. And you can see it in what has happened in US Soccer since he's come on. It's been slow, I will grant you that, but he's: Made good on his promise to put soccer people in charge of soccer decisions Started to grow a real integrated structure in terms of responsibilities Started to clean house on a bunch of lesser resumes But all of this gets viewed through the lens of a negative view. Stewart isn't a soccer man in charge of developing a cohesive vision, he's a buffer to keep Cordeiro from criticism Adding a new USMNT GM and elevating Stewart isn't adding capacity to an organization sorely lacking it, it's more bureaucracy (US Soccer needs MORE bureaucracy, not less. I've never seen an org with more heads and less worker bees) People criticize that Jay Berhalter is in the running for CEO... but ignore that reporters that claim that Cordeiro is NOT on board. And why would he be? He's a Goldman guy -- there's no way Jay Berhalter is best suited to run the business side. Transforming a personal fiefdom into a lasting, well built organization is what US Soccer needs to do now more than pipe dreams of pro/rel or pretending that they can whisk away pay to play. It's not sexy and it's happening slowly, but you can see good things. That's kind of my point. I'm sure Cordeiro is too slow for my liking, and I'm sure something else will annoy me, but he's secured the 2026 World Cup and he's started to build an organization that is cohesive across the Senior and Youth teams. Oh, and if you look at who's left and who's stayed ... I think it has mostly been upgrades. So not all bad. But if you take a hyper-negative viewpoint, it looks all bad. I can understand some frustration with transparency of the process, but no organization likes their dirty laundry out there. I do think you overestimate some of the interest. By all accounts, Tata left Atlanta because he wife no longer wanted to be in the US and wanted to live in a spanish-speaking country. I'm not sure why he takes the job over Mexico's and he worked on a day to day basis with a member of the search committee. I simply suspect we knew the score. Lopetegui? He's a fail upward guy, but I suppose that's not the point. Perhaps there was someone better out there. I think US Soccer was looking for something more than a coach. They wanted someone who would work closely with Earnie and the other coaches to develop a program, not just coach the team. Perhaps this is a poor choice. Perhaps the senior team coach should not have that level of integration. But I think that excludes a lot of international managers for hire who like to work separately. In short, I get it. But I think he was a better overall choice than most think because I think they wanted more than just show up every break. [quote[His first few camps did nothing to inspire me. Building a system around Michael Bradley who is another child of the entrenched USSF interests really got me going. Gregg acted like the smartest guy in the room despite washing out of Europe and coaching a fairly middling MLS team. The Gold Cup similarly failed to inspire me but I started to see what he was trying to do. Do I think he's making all the right decisions? No.[/quote] I don't think Gregg is a genius coach or even necessarily the best we could get. But I think he's a good coach. I think he's incredibly hard-working. I think his teams are always going to be prepared. I think he's more than capable tactically, and I think he's a ton more flexible than people think. The players really seem to like him, as well. Considering his predecessor lost the locker room, that's important. And I think a lot of tension between the issues people have is that Gregg is willing to lose a few games here and there to see if the team can build to something more while most fans go into immediate meltdown. That said, he's conservative on selections and I can understand the concern over the fit of our pool to the way he's trying to play. But I think there's plenty of pluses and minuses to him, and there's no need to wildly overstate the issues as some people do.[/quote] Agree. If players like Sargent weren't here ... I would have a lot less confidence. The fact that Morales was here actually surprised me.
I've always liked Beerholder, think he was underrated as a CD, and appreciate his loyalty. And hiring him is like Boeing getting the president of Wow to run their company. He (and most American coaches) should not have even been on the list. If the idea is that he's not a "coach" but a "system builder" he should have been hired in some other capacity. We have no one in the program who has faced and beaten top international coaches in that role. The idea that we have a coach to build/change the program ignores that if we don't win big games, there's not much to build. The idea that USSF couldn't have come up with enough money and incentives to get an experienced coach with at least a half-decent track record of beating other experienced international coaches is mind-boggling. An international coach with a track record would guarantee anything. He may well end up with the exact same results Gregg will. "Inexperienced" coach can pull off clever coaching moves (Arena v. Mex in JK being one example), but more often than not, having been at the dance a few times means you have a better chance of knowing the steps this time. Not every, or even most, top coaches would have been right for the gig, but it's impossible that the USMNT is so dismissed that they couldn't have found a single one.
(This is a bit of a meta post, but please bear with me, because I think this kind if stuff colors the conversations around this team.) First of all, I don't think that there is a ton of "blanket criticism" on here that isn't accompanied by some kind of logical reasoning. Doesn't mean it's right, but even the most extreme takes (e.g @juvechelsea , myself, etc.) that you've responded to, you've often acknowledged a kernel of truth in them. Arguments made "without facts and logic" don't usually have those nuggets of common understanding in them! Everyone views this team through their own lens. Some people are older, some are younger. Some people are naturally optimistic, some people are naturally pessimistic. That tends to lead to arguments right there, let alone the fact that what we're discussing is nuanced. I can only speak for my own fandom. It colors the way that I see this team and the organization. I've become more pessimistic about this program because I happen to have begun my fandom in the late 2000s, and got progressively more involved from then through the present. My conception of the team was/is as an underdog with hard-working, underrated players who punched above their weight. We were fighting with Mexico for CONCACAF supremacy, and seemed to be turning a corner. I had a lot of free time in High School/College to watch the games and spend a lot of time here. My fandom was forged talking on here about how to take a program seemingly on the cusp from a top 25 to a top 10-15 program. And then the 2018 WC cycle happened. And Cuova happened. And the terrible, botched coaching search happened. Cordiero, former VP, was elected as President, and the suits all seemingly shuffled up one rung to fill the vacancy left by Sunil's departure. USSF added a GM, a nebulous middle-manager with unclear powers, and even then, we couldn't even pry Stewart from Bethlehem Steel games while the program was on fire. I didn't go through the highs of 2002. Nor the lows of the 70s and 80s. USSF today is in an infinitely better place than it was back then. It's waaay better than it was in the 90s also. It's better than it was in the early 2000s. But is it significantly better than it was in, say, 2010? I know it spends and makes more money, but I don't know if it's spending more wisely now, or if it's particularly more effective as a result of that money. As an organization, the USSF consistently fails at simple hurdles. Whether it's scheduling Friendly games against no-names, or scheduling WCQ games in places that seem tailor-made to target the opposing fanbase. From fan engagement, to financial transparency, to ticket prices, USSF underwhelms almost constantly. I think such sentiment is shared by many others on this forum. For the amount of time, money, and emotion many posters, including myself, spend on this team, the end result has lately been an organization that underwhelms relative to that collective effort. You might not like that collective malaise, and maybe you're simply more optimistic than others, but that's why it's there for me, and maybe also for other people. And I think it's mostly there for valid reasons.
Hes a decent player and deserves a look. I cant see him being available long. Fm scouts seem to rate him very highly....on a side note.
He was in Bosnia's YNT system. Bosnia doesn't suck at soccer. And he's been getting first team minutes since age 18. And he plays a position where we have exhausted a lot of the obvious candidates without finding a real 6 (other than Adams). It says something Morales is being brought back. So why not others in Europe who in contrast to Morales didn't get caps before and fade into wallpaper. On DM in particular, if they think the answer is in MLS, we have gone through the veterans, Canouse, Delgado, etc., if there is an answer here it's going to be U20 or someone very new. People need to get over their fears. I am not saying replace Pulisic and audition any LM/LF drawing breath in Europe. I think we have specific needs and some of them haven't been solved from the initial auditions. So your choice is either assume that was as good as could be done -- tell us all the system will then handle it -- or kick over new rocks. The new rocks are going to be more obscure names. But that is a "snapshot" objection. If they look good when given their runout, then they won't be so obscure anymore. I think I mocked Boyd a little. Part timer in Turkey. A couple NT goals will change that. People also need to realize my theory isn't fart around trialing people all cycle. Personally I would have been auditioning once we missed out through this Gold Cup and be spending this period now starting to winnow down to the players who actually performed well in their auditions. One of the current problems I feel we have is entitlement whether they perform or not. Zardes didn't score in the knockouts, back again. Trapp didn't see the field in the knockouts, back again. Part of the game is accountability, and part of accountability is that the mediocre and the bad have their jobs put up for competition. Only the people like McKennie, Pulisic, producing most nights, should be the ones off limits.
Thanks for posting. I'll do my own little meta-post here, I suppose as a response. I come to a message board like this for real discussion. I obviously don't mind a back and forth and actually prefer if people disagree with me. I'm a resolution through conflict person in the sense that I want my assumptions to be challenged. It's how I learn -- I either learn something from them or I learn something from someone that agrees with me or I learn something from trying to answer a question that is asked. What I don't really love is when arguments don't make any sense - there's a huge hypocrisy, contradiction or compeltely ignoring the facts. Or it's clear people are just arguing to win arguments. Or they are so entrenched in their position that they can't see anything else. I know -- why am I on the internet? Mostly because why I have some friends to talk USMNT with, no one wants to talk about it as much as me as you folks. I actually want to have real discussions -- and ones where I might be wrong. What I don't understand and have no interest in is watching the discussion constantly devolve into arguments and commentary that are counter to facts, etc. I think those things -- as well as some posters who pathetically lie to win arguments, troll and attempt to bully, etc -- kill actual interesting legitimate discussion. So yeah, if there's legit criticism, great! But the first post that responded to me on this site was someone claiming they can't discuss because they are so much smarter than everyone else here. And in the new few days we saw that Berhalter hates German Americans. I mean, c'mon. It's an echo chamber of negativity that often leaves the realm of reality.
The two main things GB can control are the system and the players. The system, we don't just go out and run over everyone no matter who we play "because system." Nor, practically speaking, do we seem high functioning. We stutter through games like Curacao seemingly winning "because talent" or "because fitness" instead. Trouble working the ball upfield, possession issues, trouble creating and finishing chances, defensive issues. And then the personnel, without getting into where I would take this, is suboptimal. He makes odd choices and takes a lot of time to change the ones that don't work. He did bring Boyd in but unlike early Klinsi dual national do not seem to be a particular strength. Nor does he seem particularly eager to bring in younger players. His core concept seems mid-career. Mid-career is not the strength of this pool, which seems strongest at either 30ish or 20ish. And yet his idea of a prime candidate seems to be a 25 year old MLS player getting minutes. He doesn't appear to be beating down Efrain's door, but instead spending that time sending Nagbe redundantly ignored emails. I think we are doing well in spite of ourselves because we were in a talent ebb end of last cycle and the ocean is coming back in again. I think an idiot could take this to second place on this talent and that the real test should be handling Mexico. Which is why I really don't want to hear excuses. I already have expectations and my question of the man is does he add what we need to move up that last slot. If he doesn't do that he was the wrong man for this. That being said, I think the single round of qualifying we will have will have more punch than even usual as teams will not be able to ease in and adjust during the semis. Whether the system actually works, whether he has the right names sorted by next year, this will be strenuously tested next year. All the big talk and fan sycophancy won't change a thing if he doesn't have this sucker humming with enough talent on the field next year. You do that and we already see Concacaf can eat you alive, snobs believe it or not.
I also would like to see more of a stable, long term, talent driven mentality, and less riding roller coasters speculating about current form. I feel like we are confusing processes usually used for initial marginal scouting with how to handle proven players long term. Yes, we should consider for marginal pool options that haven't been tried much, ok, what league do you play in. For which team. How many goals. How do you look. How many minutes this season. But once a Sargent has a few caps and 2 goals in his first year -- and was more productive than Zardes -- that becomes your calling card to come back. You then have a NT track record. NT goals. NT minutes. Reverting to scouting is absurd. We shouldn't be flyspecking his club situation until it impacts his NT play. Y'all have that backwards.** It's absurd to have one guy outperform the other for the Nats last year and you wipe that all back out and ask who is getting club minutes and goals again. That's subbing scouting considerations for actual NT play. Like we zeroed out 2018 and started over. In which case why even play friendlies. The absurd thing is trying to take credit for a player looking good in the early season that you just left off the team this summer. And now we are basically repeating the competition of 2018 in which Sargent could probably whoop Zardes in a fair fight based on technique, finishing, and passing. That Zardes is better situated in club at this specific moment in time can't practically change that. It is only creating deliberate abstracted confusion where there need not be any based on concrete NT performance. One is simply more talented a soccer player. I get annoyed that this takes years to sort out because we have become Club USA and the bouncer at the door wants to feel powerful. **The exception would be Bobby Wood. If you are in a slump for both teams, and we call you in and can't fix it, fine, leave him off. But otherwise it's absurd to let the clubs tell us who to pick. That being said I thought Wood should have been in this summer as a project. Several weeks of training and games and see if we could fix it. These quick turnaround international dates, different story. You're either fit and sharp or not.
And this is nothing new. It's been that way for the last 4-5 years, all masked by the "BUT THE LOST GENERATION" excuses.
to clarify, when I say stable, I mean our sense of particular players should be stable and more based on pure talent and not on how 2019 is going and where they are signed for pro ball that year. players do not change that much. a guy who looks good for the nats in 2018 shouldn't disappear for 2019 because some MLS workhorse is playing club minutes and them less so. this is precisely backwards of good sense and punishes players of demonstrated quality for professional ambitions that lesser players cannot pursue. it's almost a recipe to get the second best player on purpose.
the thing is that if the player eval is actually done, and is performance based, bradley either plays well or gives up the winner. bradley in fact right now gives up the winner. if you keep focused on reality this is actually quite easy. we just don't seem to do that as much anymore. too much worked out in a coach's head and then not reconciled to the tape. it's only when we start loading things up with "played for me at Columbus," "minutes," "leadership," "nostalgia," etc. that it can even be confused. on the cold blooded merits bradley would be at best a sub, and some of these trapp/baird type players would be gone. just go back to, a mix of tangibles and some of those intangibles gets you that first cap, and beyond that it's on the field. the best 23 field performers on the team. if you turn out kenny cooper i don't care if you were at ManU that first cap. that would fix 75% of our problems.
And the wild thing is, I assumed with Saracha's run and the Hex fiasco, it would have been the perfect time to do away with the "experience counts" lunacy and start fresh. But then Egg came on, and he immediately builds the team around two subpar 6s, and maybe even worse, keeps bringing in previous failures and marginal MLS guys. These guys have either failed countless times (gonzo, MB, Guzan) or are simply not good (Zardes, Baird, Lovitz). But it simply doesn't matter. It's even slightly worse now, because at least Brucie brought in the old guys thinking they'd get him to the WC. Egg has no such excuse. Early in the cycle, no reason to have any old guys around, or players who have shown that they aren't at this level. At least we got Sargent and Dest!
If you look at USSF's non profit financials there is absolutely no reason (a) we haven't figured out how to pay women like men or (b) that we couldn't afford a better coach. They have 9-figure investments. https://www.ussoccer.com/governance/financial-information I personally find the "value" concept unscientific and subjective. I want an objective winner. That is tangible proof they can overcome anything to get there. If you want plucky, pick the winner who had the hardest road to winning. But the fact is we have no idea if some midtable plucky type can elevate to the desired level. Some do, some stay Moyes. I now hear some GB fans saying the US talent lets GB down. So we have basically moved his excuses up a level. When he was supposed to leverage our talent into more than the sum of their parts. To underline unscientific, I also feel like "value" becomes a talking point after the choice as opposed to a rigorously evaluated contribution prior to the choice. What if another coach had less payroll and ended with more points? So rather than comparing "value" we instead pick any old value guy and tell the press we think he has unusual value. But scientifically as opposed to rhetorically, not precisely true. You had other options who extracted even more value. It's kind of self serving and lazy. And to me, if they never won a trophy anywhere, laden in optimism. You know how I know blah blah can coach for sure? I require the trophies Flynn used to require to even survive the first round of culls. At that point I know everyone left has done it right at least once. I'm not speculating about upside, I'm not kidding myself, they have objective cred. Personally I feel like some of this is about watering down what the job requires. The reality is you could take a good MLS team builder with winning cred like Arena and not qualify. I don't get how that promotes even lesser resumes like the last two. If anything it should scream for the opposite, that we need to up the resume requirements and pay packets. I think Columbus and Austin can make their bets on value. We are the big dog. We should be more about a sure thing. Last, what good team that misses qualifying makes an experiment out of its coaching job? Usually this is when the Fed gets serious and lowers the risk taking. As opposed to hires some midtable value guy they believe in. And FWIW I think that belief is dated. I think someone wanted him in 2015 when he was the flavor of the month but lost on Arena's hire, and that exec pushed for this as their redo. But in the intervening 3 years he had faded back to ordinary results. He would not have been the money is no object choice. Nor was he any longer the sexy value guy of the month. This is a mix of cronyism and a mulligan or a score settling, not an objective choice.
Out of curiosity, if USA were playing 442 a la Uruguay (think suarez and forlan) who would be a good partner for Sargent up top based on current roster? I was thinking Sargent and Morris could work well. I would actually prefer 352 so we could get some cb aerial game into the mix. Also I think we'd be better with a 442 diamond so Pulisic could be used to best effect. I"m falling asleep just thinking about Sargent trying to fill Egg's role for him.
To the people touting Dest: https://sbisoccer.com/2019/09/sergi...e=smg&utm_medium=wasabi&utm_content=home-hero why exactly are we racing to tie down a player who needs work and after working up our youth age group system AND being handed this callup, still isn't even committed? i'd send his butt home and call in someone else for the second game. this was obviously tracking where he was probably going to get called again in October and get cap tied. so with that investment and last step on the ladder approaching, he balks?? no. i am actually fine with one time switchers and people who haven't made a choice on the fence. as long as they are on the fence and not in camp. but if you accept a callup and say this during camp this is horse hooey. on THAT i would agree with the hardcore who are like we should demand loyalty. not so much the other stuff but among other things he shouldn't get state secrets and waste our playing time to mull it over and maybe walk.
I thought we already tried 3 backs and got torched this summer. I used to play on 3 man backlines and that's "man's stuff." You need 3 very good defenders who can athletically cover ground and man mark on an island without much help. To me that formation was what a good 4 man line graduated to. "Well, you're so good we can push people up." If your backs make you uncomfortable they need more help, not less. Go back and look at England and Colombia to see how quickly and well Brooks covers even tiny amounts of ground to close down potential shooters (hint: he doesn't really). In terms of your 442, Wood and Sargent, or Sargent and Pulisic. FWIW you might consider that with his technique Sargent is the one you want playing off the target as opposed to the back to goal lunk himself. Re Pulisic, I think the error of GB's ways is not so much wide vs central as forward vs mid. The mistake is having him set up others with lesser skill. Pulisic should be the finisher not the 10. I see him as akin to Dempsey or Landon, wide to create, center forward to finish. I think Sargent, like say AJ, is more of a technical type. He needs accurate service to his head or foot. He doesn't need balls over the top to chase. I think if he's out there with A team types like Pulisic and another guy or two with touch who can deliver a ball where he needs it, he will be fine. He already did it last year. I think Jamaica, however, is what happens if he is with the B/C teams and what passes for second or third tier wings in this regime eg Roldan and Mihailovic, who are really hustle players. He gets that level of service and he will disappear. Mind you, he still had our best shot, but he's the technician to finish a good ball and not as much the athlete to go chase hopeful passes. But that is more about putting talent in a position to do well.
Well, he didn't balk … he was, as was written in the article, "noncommittal" about whether he would accept the potentially cap-tying callup for the Nations League next month. But I certainly get your point. I would like to think that a guy who played for and matriculated from BOTH our u-17 and u-20 teams and now called up to the main squad at 18 years of age would be a little less "noncommittal" at this stage.
On the fence with what to do with him the next week. 1. Play him and show him that USSF is committed to him like we have been for YEARS. or 2. Just have him in camp but don't play him a minute this time around. Tell him we want a commitment come the Nations League. One way or the other but we aren't giving you minutes, taking time away from other committed players, until you decide. You can certainly go about it professionally and cordially. Tell him they understand he has a a tough decision to make. But we have limited first team minutes and they need to be used as best we can.
Somebody should tell Berhalter. We have been throwing away caps on crap players all year. With this roster, we are likely to throw away more in the next week.
i cant speak for berhalter/us soccers thinking or how much theyre "racing" to "tie him down", all i know is he absolutely deserves, and has earned, this callup based on his play. i dont know how anyone could possibly disagree with that. youd send his butt home? thats...how can i respectfully say really stupid? with all respect thats really, really stupid. heres the facts- hes accepted every call to represent us internationally at youth (usually playing up) and now the sr level. you think we preemptively send him home for saying what every athlete, in every sport, in every scenario says- anythings possible, not closing any doors, etc? seriously? i really hope this is just a visceral, off the cuff reaction cause thats an insane take. hes more dutch than american in terms of lineage, yet he- again- has been nothing but as loyal as he possibly can be to us soccer. every call, hes there, playing for the us national teams.
I think Morris running 'off the shoulder' from the halfway line with a burst of speed keeps the cb's occupied while Sarge drops back to pick up the ball, connect then run into space to find a place he can score from. At the same time, Pulisic is a breakaway threat form central mid with a bee line to goal with the ball if he is central mid (10). That would be the theory. As for the 3cb's, you'd likely be looking at somebody other than Brooks which is a shame, but remember that Adams is settling into a fairly defensive 6 at Leipzig and playing with 3cb's formation last year and doing well. Ultimately the 352 will succeed if the wb's are good because they tend to score key goals. Look at Caliguri last year, considered best player for Schalke in 352 formation but this year not so active in the 4 man back line Wagner prefers. Our cb pool is getting deep with Richards, Miles joining Long, Miazga, Brooks, and it looks like Glad is coming into his own and Parker isn't slow for Redbulls as we saw v. France in 2018.