the good thing is that they are cap tied now. So when we get roasted by Mexico 3 - 0 or 3 - 1 and Gulati finally does what we think he could be incapable of … and Alvarado and Brooks are excoriated for being beaten badly, a new coach should have the time to rehab them and give them another chance to play for the US … in the interim after Klinsmann has screwed them over, they cannot go play for another country (Germany or Mexico). I really feel sorry for the current US players - these players deserve a coach that can consistently provide the best training and plan to be implemented which gives them the chance to succeed. Klinsmann does not even get the basics - like setting up a strong cohesive defense that is a unit, and understands and trusts each other … Complex socio cultural, new age things he gets .. but simple plan and execution stuff he is clueless about.
it is interesting (I agree with you about Zardes by the way) that Zardes has developed under Arena and surrounded by Keane and (now) Gerrard and (before) Donovan. The only two elements recently JK has done that I agree with - playing Yedlin again and again, and bringing Zardes into the fold and giving him chances. Everything else has been consistently horrid.
IIRC that 2012 game was mostly Brazil's Olympic team getting ready. Still a Brazil U-23 is pretty darn strong. From what I remember in 2012 they pressed higher and harder, causing more turn overs in dangerous areas. This also meant that when we beat the press, we had more room to operate through the midfield and in attack. This current Brazil (Dunga) always got numbers back in defense, so we struggled to turn possession into meaningful offensive, as most teams would do against them. Whereas just a couple of their players can wreck our defense. I think that was the main difference in the game.
Well, we've ALWAYS had trouble with the CONMEBOL teams, at every level. A positive spin out of this is that we managed to beat one of the two. It's not something we do often.
We don't play a lot of games against them, and when we do it's heavily Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, etc (well, first 3). We had a famous win against one of those. I think we would have beaten Chile recently if we stuck to the 3-5-2. We were winning, on their soil, and we had an edge. We've fudged mid-tier CONMEBOL sides (like are your prides) such as Paraguay, Ecuador, and Venezuela; when we've played them straight up. That's before another win vs. Peru. Why don't we play Paraguay, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, even Uruguay, more? I'm guessing it's monetary disputes. They think they're worth more than they are here. Competitively, it makes sense. They'd make for good, but fair tests for our players. And I think we'd win more than they would, with our average manager. With this one, the Brazil performance was below standard. Own soil, I expect to lose by uno, and create chances here and there throughout. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
Something we've done once since 2003 against Brazil and that wasn't on home soil. Having neither of our first choice fullbacks going up against Neymar, Willian, etc is generally gonna be pretty bad, regardless of who you are. I thought there were positive things in the first half of the game. The second half we sorta fell apart but it's a friendly without most of our starting back line...not really worried.
There is a lot of semantic and academic arguments taking place in this type of thread as is per usual, but most appear to be glossing over the fact that BOTH Bedoya and Jones expressed some very negative body language towards Jurgie specifically on exit. There was already speculation prior to this game about whether JK had lost the locker room during the Gold Cup or even prior to that. Given that both Jones and Bedoya had previously been assumed to be on the JK sweetheart side of the ledger I find it noteworthy that both acted out so visibly after being pulled in this game, particularly given Jurgie's Captain Queeg-like reputation. Point being that regardless of intent or capability the level of trust might be kaput, and rightfully so.
It's interesting how our best results against S. American teams come in that "magic" Jan 2002-May 2006 window, when we climbed all the way to #4 in the FIFA rankings and looked nearly invincible: ---Arena USA 2-2 Paraguay Bolivia 0-0 USA USA 2-1 Chile USA 1-0 Argentina Brazil 1-0 USA (Confeds in Mexico) Chile 1-2 USA USA 1-0 Peru (Gold Cup) USA 2-2 Colombia (Gold Cup) USA 0-1 Colombia USA 1-2 Brazil USA 0-0 Ecuador USA 1-0 Ecuador (March 2002) USA 2-1 Uruguay (May 2002) USA 0-1 Argentina USA 2-0 Venezuela (March 2003) Brazil 1-0 USA (Confeds in France) USA 2-0 Paraguay (July 2003) USA 1-2 Brazil (Gold Cup) USA 3-0 Colombia (March 2005) USA 2-0 Venezuela (May 2006) ---Bradley USA 3-1 Ecuador Argentina 4-1 USA (Copa America in Venezuela) Paraguay 3-1 USA (Copa America in Venezuela) Colombia 1-0 USA (Copa America in Venezuela) USA 2-4 Brazil USA 0-0 Argentina Brazil 3-0 USA (Confeds in S. Africa) Brazil 3-2 USA (Confeds in S. Africa) USA 0-2 Brazil USA 0-0 Colombia USA 1-1 Chile USA 1-1 Argentina USA 0-1 Paraguay ---Klinsmann USA 0-1 Ecuador USA 1-0 Venezuela USA 1-4 Brazil USA 1-1 Ecuador Colombia 2-1 USA (in England) Chile 3-2 USA USA 2-1 Peru USA 1-4 Brazil Klinsmann has played C-BOL teams only eight times, winning two matches, tying one, and losing five. Bradley played them 13 times, with only one win, four ties, and eight defeats. Arena record is the most impressive, but mostly due to that "Magic Window" when we peaked right before the 2002 World Cup and fell flat on our faces at the 2006 World Cup: 10 wins (six in the Window), 4 ties & 6 losses (4 of them to Brazil). So, basically, it was true that back in the Arena days we only lost to the big names, and got results against the second-tier South American teams. But since the Bradley days that has changed. Bradley + Klinsmann have a very poor record against those teams: 21 games, only 3 wins --even though 14 were played at home. In the whole, our record vs. CONMEBOL shows a clear peak during the Arena years, and decadence after that.
Thank for the data. From where did you get the data? I have never found an easy way to get that sort of data from the FIFA website, had to go team by team. It was a pain. I knew we were something like 2 for the last 16 against Conmebol, going into last weeks matches. Also to point out, 16 of Arena's 20 games were at home, 2 were neutral, and only 2 were on the road at the South American team. Also this should be a real eye opener for those who might think we would qualify out of Conmebol. In another thread I believe, you showed Peru's near perfect record against Concacaf. A Conmebol team that has not seen the WC in decades would almost be a shoe in to qualify out of Concacaf.
Here: http://eloratings.net/USA.htm And I just search for each one of the 10 C-BOL teams. I'm no fan of Klinsmann by any means, but losing to Brazil is par; and beating Peru, even at home, is a good result. IMO, even Mexico would have a hard time making it out of S. America in the last two cycles. C-BOL is, on average, better than ever --even though the top 2/3 teams in WCs are from Europe.
I do like the ELO site. I was just hoping there was a place I could search "US versus Conmebol" and not go team by team. I doubt Mexico would have made it last time given their horrid slump. But IIRC their "A team", not the crap they sent to the last 2 Copas, has an overall winning record against most Conmebol teams. And I agree that Conmebol has been the best over the last 8 years or so.
Look who Bobby played though. All but 3 of those games were against the elites to whom I was referring. And 1 of those 3 was in Copa America with our b-squad vs. their a-squad. Doesn't really count. 2 games in an even up match vs. sub elite South American teams - 1 win vs. Ecuador, 1 loss vs. Paraguay. It's a tiny sample. Jerken is 2-1-1 against sub-elite South American sides, and lost to all the others. That's close to the standard Bradley set, with yet another tiny sample. Bobby probably would have beaten Peru at home. We do fine against the sub-elite sides from your old continent. What your list shows is we should get Booce back for the rest of this cycle. Bobby was average, and Jerken is mediocre at best when weighting in official, a-side competitions. Not only did Booce have the great first WC, but he took out several elite South American sides during his tenure, and didn't lose to any of the sub-elite ones in 8 years. In conjunction with Jerken helping us get over the mental stranglehold we had on us in Europe, which is one thing I do give him credit for, we could do some really nice things the rest of the way here. Losing to Brazil is par, but far from how we lost to them. 1-4 with a garbage goal at the end and very few real chances throughout. That's sub-par.
I'm not convinced it was so much Arena as the group of players he had at that point. We've been surviving on the scraps fed us by the leftovers from that 2001-2005 generation: Donovan, Beasley, Cherundolo, Dempsey. Have we had guys who could replace Hejduk, Pope, McBride, Reyna, JOB, heck, Mastro? We have guys who are inconsistent, with one bad game for each good one. From those guys, we got good games a lot more consistently. I can hardly remember a game where McBride or Pope didn't look good. But now, Jozy, Bradley, Bedoya, Jones, Gonzo, etc. --I'm not even sure most of them even manage a 50/50 ratio.
Those decisions depend in large part on the overall makeup of talent in the team and other position-critical attributes. I think vision is a scarcer attribute so I'd shade that way.
We've discussed player selection and utilization, ad nauseum, but that's part of it. When you pick Julian Green instead of the aforementioned Donovan from the so-called golden generation, Brooks/Alvarado instead of Besler/Gonzo/Hedges/Miazga, Cameron not at CDM but primarily other positions, a failing 2. BL striker repeatedly instead of just about anyone else, numerous lower division players, Bradley at CAM not box-to-box, a congested CM without clear roles, one attacker, etc.; you're not exactly putting your best feet forward, or backward. Wasn't Bradley nothing but not consistent earlier in his career? He's a robot programmed to do a job, but he needs to be mechanically capable of what that job is. Can't make a Roomba cook you breakfast. Even Bobby was average at best at these things. Heck if I ever knew what his fascinations were with Findley, Bornstein, and Clark. And he didn't have a connector piece from defense to attack in the empty "bucket". To fix that, and if he was insecure about his LB, he could have played 3-5-2. Bobby was better than the current manager, but he was like oatmeal, and they decided to overreact and try caviar next. It's fancier and you feel cultured having it, but at the end of the day it's even less palatable to a high majority of people. The 3-5-2 is the formation Booce employed to great success in the WC IIRC. He was more flexible to fit the formations to personnel and not just trot out the same one or do things willy nilly. And he was vastly superior at getting his best XI in the pool out on the field, unlike I'm convinced Jerken has half of right now. Because Bruce got and talked publicly about how the players with the most upside were in our own backyard, and it's foolish to chase much for David Regis, Michael Mason, David Wagner, and Carlos Mimosa. Look at the quality Booce has cultivated in LA beyond the few high-priced players, and how he usually puts them in positions to succeed. Then look at Jerken's rep between his Bayern, Germany, and Toronto's job. It's a higher standard on average, but even coaches who succeed in them like Mourinho would probably be out of their element as U.S. manager because of circumstances much different than Europe.
I'm one of the more pro Klinsi guys here, and I find your argument specious. So, if I've never won an Academy Award, I can't say I did not like Dustin Hoffman in Little Fockers?
I think this is non-sense. When I watch SKC, I usually concentrate on him and maybe one or two players since I am watching from a USMNT or USYNT perspective, so I play really close attention to his game. His confidence in his passing and on the ball is excellent. He doesn't panic if he has some forwards running at him to pressure him. He takes an extra second or two, and waits until he averts the pressure. He's especially good at long passes, evident by a play like the Brek Shea goal against Chile. Best at that in the pool, IMO and I don't think its close. With the USMNT, I don't pay as close attention to him because I am watching all 11 players from a fan perspective, but there's a lot of emergency defending to do. I wouldn't be surprised if what you are viewing is a player who can pass it well out of the back but doesn't feel comfortable enough, given the constant pressure on our back line. Or maybe this just isn't the case, but I haven't taken the time to analyze any one player so closely in an important NT game.
I'm calling BS on this. This seems like such an ignorant opinion of Besler. Its basically the "all the young players have what we are looking for and the older players don't" opinion that we are all guilty of from time to time. There are older center-backs in our player pool who don't pass that well. A good example of this is Gonzalez. Besler's the best passer in our player pool of any of the older center-backs. I think Brooks is a really good passer, and its probably close between the two, but to say Besler isn't a good passer is so off base. It's like the people that argued that Donovan wasn't fast anymore when he got older.
I think it's a really bad argument to bring up that things are going to change under Klinsmann if we can bring some of the youth players in from the U-23's and U-20's. Some people have started to use that argument as a way to ignore the bad job he's done coaching the USMNT. From what I've observed, there are no immediate superstars on any of those teams. Some very good players, mostly in defensive positions like GK, CB and DM. Those aren't really positions we need to add talent at. I think Howard, Guzan, Hamid, Besler, Brooks, Gonzalez, Cameron Bradley, Morales (maybe), Kitchen are players we can build around. I don't think those positions are problem positions for the NT. I think the problem positions are mainly full back, AM, winger and CF. At those positions within the group of players in our YNT pool, I think there are probably only around five or so players that could reasonably make a difference for the USMNT within the next year or so. I'd really caution against this notion that Zelalem and Pulisic and Hyndman and Carter-Vickers and whoever else you rate from these youth teams is going to come in and save the day. I like the progress we have made in producing better prospects as well, but I don't think there are many youth players that can come in and save the day. I think its a mix of those players and the younger group of MLS players in their early-mid 20's that can do that.
I think he stood up Ronaldo during the WC in a 1v1. I'd call that confidence. You also seem to allude to the fact that you don't think he's skilled. Can you clarify if thats what you meant?
I did not actually. I was specifically referring to how he handles on the ball pressure in his own third. He rarely maintains possession either via dribble or pass. In tight areas and under pressure he generally resorts to clearing it. I don't doubt his ability to do otherwise. So why does he do it? I'm left with the conclusion that against elite competition he must lack confidence on my the ball in those situations