This is not meant as argument rather inquiry: how is inability at one-touch passing the coaches fault?
“As of right now, yes,” Pulisic said when asked of Mexico has a clear edge on the United States. “We still have to go out, we still play with fear against them. That is what I can’t really live with. That needs to change and we’re going to go out and give it everything the next time we play them.” Pulisic wasn’t shy about criticizing the team’s overall play on Friday, which featured an attack that rarely troubled the Mexico defense, save for some individual forays by Pulisic. “There needs to be a lot more movement and a lot more just creativity with the team, and just confidence when we go out and play against good opponents,” Pulisic said. “We have to go out and play like we’re good enough to be out there. Be confident and play without thinking twice about it and that’s how it needs to be and that’s just not where we’re at right now.” https://sbisoccer.com/2019/09/pulisic-we-still-play-with-fear-against-mexico Why does Pulisic look around and see fear in the eyes of his teammates? Why aren't his teammates hardened enough to not be scared to play Mex? Why isn't Berhalter producing a system with more movement and creativity? Why isn't the team confident? I don't blame Pulisic for questioning both the players around him and the coach. He seems to be getting fed up with his surroundings here. And this is supposed to be the period in which we learned a severe lesson from not qualifying for Russia. I for one think Berhalter has already lost Pulisic.
Interesting that you can tell ethnicity via science but I am going to call BS. Ethnicity is a social construct describing group identification
Come on man. Choosing between Sunil or the current moronic yokels is no different than being forced to turn over your CEO job to either Lloyd or Harry. Sure maybe Harry's smarter, but they're still a choice between Dumb or Dumber.
To answer @jond Our off the ball movement looks like the players are doing a practice drill in which maintaining possession is the purpose. But the purpose of the sport is to score goals (and prevent them.) Like I wrote earlier...even when we succeeded in breaking the press, we didn’t do anything threatening with the ball.
I wonder if the current political situation isn't firing up the Mexicans to come out and play us as if they wanted to destroy us. Can't blame 'em. Also, if soccer were graded like figure skating, based on making pretty moves instead of scoring or assisting goals, Puli would get a solid 8 at least. That dribbling between the four Mexicans is good enough to watch with Strauss's Blue Danube in the background.
On Univision post game they said the US team is Pulisic and ten others. i.o.w., Pulisic is the only one they rate. They say he needed help.
We have talent but not nearly as much as Mexico. I don't see how that's hard to see. We go through this after every match. The drama and chicken little stuff is just embarrassing.
It is a mark of one significantly out of his depth to retreat to an inner keep, in the company of old allies who will never question his "vision", and create a simulacrum of the world that is in accord with what that "vision" says it should be....... It is also the mark of insanity.
Even Gogorath is now just going through the motions. His quartet of tired non-sequiturs trotted dutifully out after each debacle, ever declining in spirit and elaboration, with barely enough effort to earn his coin. It's like watching Golem as it sinks in that his Precious may truly be gone.
So are a great deal other Argentines, including Messi. I count French, Italian, English, and Basque among my heritage, so very European in appearance/ethnicity, but I'm still Hispanic and Latino culturally. We aren't all mestizos and of course there are many blacks among our ranks. So yeah Yarbrough is Hispanic unless he's been raised in an ex-pat bubble or something and didn't assimilate to Mexico whatsoever. I'm not too familiar with his exact background. I will admit it's a little blurrier in a first gen case like that.
There is the scientific study of the distribution and flow of genes through human populations, and the attempt to map their expression. There is the argle-bargle of the varied "intelligentsia" sprawled across this earth, busy in "socially constructing" and "describing" and "identifying" groups of folks as befits the "shoulda's and coulda's" of their preferences-- and busy contending with each other as to who gets to impose their fine discriminatory sensibilities upon the world, parochial and farflung. There are points of connection between them, although far less than most people would imagine [although more than the absolute separation you seem to uphold]. Of these two, exactly one is properly described as BS. Yet even with those nice odds you still chose poorly.
Soccer games are often won or tied by the less talented team. Croatia had no business in a WC final by talent. Gregg is not maximizing the talent.
im gonna need a confirmation on tatas height before i can chime in on his clutural ethnicity, here on the us/mex postgame thread... never change, bs!
Looks like this is the worst loss to Mexico, by a fully rostered US team, since a 4-0 setback in the 1993 Concacaf Championship. The frequently cited 5-0 blowout loss in 2009 was by a C team that Bob had rolled out.
That’s true at the moment. But that happens as you ask players to play another way. I don’t know yet if Berhalter is a good enough coach to get the most out of this team, but I’m not really surprised we lost to Mexico right now. And claims that we match up in talent are silly. We’ll see.
2009 was the confed cup year. Stu Holden was about the only A team talent I recall and it was still 0-0 into the second iircc.
.... what? First - race and ethnicity is a social construct. It's sociology, not biology. E.g., the difference between Irish and English people is practically indistinct in genetic terms, but try telling them there is little significant difference. Racial, social, and ethnic identities shift and change on a generational basis, too quickly to be tracked with high confidence in biological trends of a population. Consequently, ethnicity is a self-reported measure in medical science. I would've assumed "a scientist" would've known that. Second - population genetics is based on genes and DNA (as the name suggests). Ancestry is tracked via haplogroups, a group of linked genetic mutations that are inherited from a common ancestor. Human haplogroups are the closest thing in biology to race/ethnicity, as they can be used to track the progress of human migrations. Neat, huh? Now, you'll notice the divergences are indicated in thousands of years before present (YBP), because that's generally how long it takes for a haplogroup to describe itself - which is why it doesn't match up well with the more rapid changes in social identity, such as race and ethnicity. Incidentally, this is why you shouldn't really trust those 23AndMe-type tests which promise to tell you that you're 23.5% Croatian or that you have a 42.2% chance of being a descendant of King Arthur. They're fun, but don't take those as hard science. There's a reason they're not vetted by the FDA - because there's no means by which to measure their accuracy. But I have never heard of "proteins in their white blood cells" being used to track ethnic identity. A brief search on PubMed reveals nothing published on such a process. White blood cells are generally what you use to extract DNA from a sample. But proteins? DNA isn't a protein. Maybe this is the confusion? (fyi: genetics isn't my field, so apologies to anyone who is a geneticist for whom my explanation up there was grossly simplified or imprecise)
My thought as well. How long before he takes another “sabbatical” and takes McKennie and Sargent with him. Personally, I’d like the three of them to go play for Kreis and make a run at the Olympics. Build some momentum and confidence for the future generations US soccer.
Dude. I think you are confusing heritage/race with ethnicity. Ethnicity has nothing to do with biology. It is a Social Science term to describe group identity within a population. The other poster tried to say he could identify ethnicity through cells (biology). That is untrue as ethnicity has nothing to do with genetics. Maybe understand what is being said before trying to pin me as stating an inflammatory statement that is literally the definition of Ethnicity. I have no idea what you were ranting about above. But I get the sense treat you are asserting I am a bigot which is absurd.
I'm not going to get into a lengthy off-topic debate about the existence of race and what not. Suffice to say that we have three ways of tracking human migrations and shared recent ancestry: Y-chromosome linked genes (paternal lineage), mitochondrial DNA (maternal lineage) and white blood cell proteins (immunological history). The first two can be used to map big migrations and large groups. The last two, for smaller differences. The immune system is what changes the most since different groups had to face different challenges (germs). Nothing of this means we're radically different from each other. We're all the same species, pretty much equivalent and less divergent than some other mammals (and more than some others). There are some small racial/ethnic differences from the medical point of view (an example: the presence of the CCR5-Δ32 mutation among some Caucasian populations that makes those people nearly immune to contracting HIV), but they're nothing that can be translated into the realm of the social sciences.