Post-match: USA v. Canada

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by dlokteff, Nov 16, 2019.

  1. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    I’m going my phone and can’t respond to all that except I don’t want the US to use Mexico game where we won by bunkering and hit a miracle shot as a template for success. I’m over that template.

    The GC final is a better model where they played cyclical enough to have a chance to win that game but had a foundation for future success with a more proactive style.
    It’s a model that fits both worlds of competitive and aspirational.
     
    jnielsen and gogorath repped this.
  2. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    i am on no mission. this is about results. if you'd rather lose and play prettier than play for the win, that's your thing. i don't think most fans are on board for that.

    actually, i tend to promote attacking soccer. because i think for most of the schedule it would get results. but i think for some specific hex games we should clog the middle and not just hand opponents an open game of our talent vs their talent. mexico and CR.

    i also think it's naive to trust a scattershot offense. when we get some dempseys again i would bet on precision offense. to me i thought we played like an away game high initial effort strategy -- lacked the precision to net the goal -- and then got beat at the end like a road team that ran out of gas, by a single precision shot. if you want pretty go find someone on our pool that can hit that type of a shot.
     
    Namdynamo, UncagedGorilla and DHC1 repped this.
  3. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    Posters are pining for a style that's attractive and annoying state that anything less than attractive play is "bunkering". If we can find someone who can consistently deliver a good ball, we have the making of an elite dead ball team with Brooks, McKennie, Long, Miagza, Sargent, Pulisic (two headers for goals for a short guy!) et al. being very good. The game is also moving toward dead balls being far more important. Good luck to Mexico to stopping us if we focused on this.

    That may not be style that some prefer but it's beyond stupid to pursue a look. I have no idea why we want to emulate Mexico who are always saying,"well, we lost but we looked pretty good losing" when they flame out at the world cup and my favorite "America played like shit - I can't believe they beat us because we look so much better".
     
  4. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    i want US soccer to become elite and not accept less. Development and competitiveness are both important to me.

    US soccer needs to progress and I’m game for any sacrifice that doesn’t include not qualifying.
     
  5. gogorath

    gogorath Member+

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    Just stop.

    1. If the Mexican lineup in the Gold Cup was a B+ lineup, the Mexican lineup here -- in a friendly -- was a C to C-. Angel Zaldivar started at striker. In a pool with Raul Jimenez and Chicharito.

    2. If merely starting that game is enough to mean inclusion in the pool, you have no issues with starting Zardes and Will Trapp, right?

    3. Actually, Wil Trapp won that game. Sure, Tyler Adams hit the winning goal, but Trapp drew a 67' red card. Before that, we were getting beat pretty convincingly -- worse than GC 2019, frankly. But we went a man up and got a goal. Go US!

    This argument falls apart under even the slightest of scrutiny.

    Ummm, you post 30,000 diatribes on a message board. Just who do you expect to listen?
     
  6. gogorath

    gogorath Member+

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    Not only that -- Mexico got a red card.

    Juvechelsea's gameplan is to draw a red card against a C Mexico lineup.
     
    Pragidealist repped this.
  7. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    To be fair - that is why I started a blog and I’ve been very surprised to how many read. Lol
     
    gogorath repped this.
  8. gogorath

    gogorath Member+

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    I mean we all do this to "hear" ourselves "talk" to some extent. I just am trying to figure out if juve thinks that Berhalter and Earnie are reading.
     
    Pragidealist repped this.
  9. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    change comes through development and not sticking any old 11 players out there in a formation we self servingly pronounce to be possession oriented.

    i also think a lot of the aesthetic arguments don't tend to align with my memory of what 2010 looked like. i don't think "leicester" soccer is that ugly.

    i am actually for a team that plays like the first halves of the cuba and canada wins, but that is not what i think GB's normal idea of personnel and tactics looks like. i see a split between an athletic, counter oriented approach, for which we have personnel, that plays to strengths, and can be viewed as "attacking," and a slow motion, technical, possession oriented half court team, that builds from the back, which i think GB instead prefers, but which we don't have the personnel for, and which i think few Concacaf teams are just going to let passively be imposed upon them. they will instead come out and press and hack. you cannot theorize formations in a vaccuum. we have to consider how will others respond.

    i feel like there are teams in germany and italy that play the way we did in the winning efforts. defend with organization and intensity, get down the flanks with speed. i don't think it's ugly. but it's not possession oriented. it doesn't fetishize percentage numbers. it doesn't think it's that useful to be passing the ball around the perimeter but not creating chances.*** i would rather have several dangerous chances than win possession and barely get the ball in the box. we already had this debate JK's first cycle.

    last, i think we should be building off of existing player types and styles and not rebooting and abandoning historical strengths in favor of the theory that after several years they will be replaced with hypothesized new values.

    ***memory serves the critique when JK tried his version was we would knock it around but the striker rarely actually saw the ball. and JK's version had passing tempo as opposed to walking the ball up like it's HS or something.
     
    Patrick167 and DHC1 repped this.
  10. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    Still in my phone in a really long tedious meeting- so can’t respond in depth. My response is mostly my blog on related to new us style of play. I think this system and style is more comprehensive than most seem to think. I really like that
     
  11. Excellency

    Excellency Member+

    LA Galaxy
    United States
    Nov 4, 2011
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    You need to see him play again to figure out if Dest is a rb or lb?

    Ok, let me know when you figure it out.

    As for Berhalter, go back and watch his Crew games with younger Higuaín and you'll see what you were watching in Orlando.

    Egg, like Arena, watched for years in envy as others had the pick of the litter while managing the USMNT and after dreaming for years they became quite convinced that they were the 2nd coming who would show the way to salvation. Oh, how they would play if only they had the likes of Jones or Dempsey or Donovan or Brooks, etc.

    Americans make a priori judgments of how the game should be played at the international level then get disappointed when they discover it doesn't work.
    Here's a homework reading for Egg, that he might grow up to be a big, strong rooster.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
     
    UncagedGorilla repped this.
  12. UncagedGorilla

    Barcelona
    Sep 22, 2009
    East Bay, CA
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    American Samoa
    I actually think we looked better in that 2018 game than the Gold Cup final too. It wasn't our A team either but we played with more defensive grit than anytime since up until this Canada game using a backline of three guys who can't get a sniff from our coach. They played Zalvidar as their striker, we played Kellyn Acosta as a starting winger. And Will Trapp got skinned multiple times in that game but our backline was full of defense-first players who were able to cover up those mistakes with real defending. Had we been able to play someone like Danny Williams who we used against Portugal with a similar backline, I think that game would have looked even better. I'd rather have used that group as a building block than the January camp. Better players.

    The issue is many of you have bought into this propaganda that until Gregg, we never believed in possession and now we are finally on the right track if only we give it time. This is just false. We had more possession in that 2018 game than we have against Mexico since. Klinsmann also tried to bring a possession-based style but gave up when the results of his experiment started to fail. Fyi, Germany outpossessed us in the 2002 WC quarterfinal by less than Mexico did in the Gold Cup Final in 2019. A lot of revisionist history is going on here. My hope is that Gregg did the same thing as JK and became a pragmatist. I am actually quite pleased with the change in the defensive scheme and the willingness to go direct in this past game. Now, you and the scholar are trying to tell us that really what happened was Gregg's system working to full effect. My eyes tell me otherwise.

    Though I do want to add that @gogorath and I totally agree on Lletget's inclusion being very important to the team looking better. Like I said in my post 8 pages back on this thread, Lletget is the only guy in our pool that I have seen that's capable of doing a reasonable impression of a 10. He did that in this past game and it made a big difference. I hope to see him play that role again tonight. Having a functional midfield comprised of three guys with complementary skillsets (rather than three 8's) is something Gregg has not understood but I hope that the Canada game shows that he has seen the light there too.

    tl;dr - I'm very happy about the CHANGES Gregg made and won't be convinced he just did more of the same, because he didn't.
     
    gogorath and Patrick167 repped this.
  13. Suyuntuy

    Suyuntuy Member+

    Jul 16, 2007
    Vancouver, Canada
    So we need a system that allows us to use three right backs.
     
    Pragidealist repped this.
  14. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    not difficult, you put the best players in the spine and then worry about filling wide. plus i want specialists in their positions. to me it's absurd to have a better player moved wide in deference to the merely serviceable or outright shoddy.

    in plain english, i am pretty sure adams is better than yueill, and then you pick cannon or dest wide. to me it's symptomatic of something off if you instead go yueill middle, where he is maybe not even second best, and then adams wide where he doesn't normally play, ahead of two decent RB. does that sound like your best players in their best spots, or does it sound like a screwball effort where no place gets maximized?

    along similar lines, unless zardes magically improves, we need a dempsey type striker and for now the closest facsimile would be CP. failing that, i would see about a wood rehabilitation project. i am at a loss for the propensity to settle for the first player to have one decent game at a position.
     
    DHC1 repped this.
  15. Suyuntuy

    Suyuntuy Member+

    Jul 16, 2007
    Vancouver, Canada
    Wood is done.

    We better pray Sargent flourishes.

    Otherwise, it's back to the usual: expecting most goals, specially in tough games, to come from midfield.
     

Share This Page