We don't merely have plenty of the ball. We have plenty of the ball in the opposition half, the opposition third, even, which correlates pretty well with goals and winning. But we create few chances in the final third, which correlates poorly.
On Gio, the exact ? was: 1. "How's he doing, what's his status for tomorrow? 2. Is it accurate to say that he was available [Monday], but you thought it would be a risk, and just based on how the game played out you decided not to take that risk? Is that an accurate summation?" https://t.co/FonnOkhBkP— Henry Bushnell (@HenryBushnell) November 24, 2022 Gregg has a quick trigger for getting prickly with the media, which blends unfavorably with his tendency to not be totally clear. I have no idea whether he thinks the US soccer media is particularly unfair, but there are lots of such complaints on this board, including the post I replied to. The European media, especially the English, are immeasurably, incomparably worse, and specialize in making unfavorable clickbaity inferences out of anodyne statements. This stuff is part of a soccer coach's job, and it's twice as important across the pond.
O my god! I just find out in the World Cup, you are allowed to score a goal off the set pieces! Both Croatia and Morocco did just that. I wish US coaches know that before hand!!!
What's required is somebody to kick the door in. That's where Aaronson comes in. @gogorath suggests Leeds "ships goals" in this system even as they score goals on tough opponents like Liverpool, Tottenham, Chelsea. I believe that is because they need Adams to contribute to offense at Leeds, which he does and could do for USA, but fail to put a 3rd cb behind him to fill the space Adams should defend as a 6 dmid. Nagelsman used to play 3 cb's behind Adams. The neat thing about the current roster is that Gio plays a complementary role to Aaronson's central play if you look at Gio's best moments v. Nederland 2nd half. if the basic scheme is ---------pulisic--------------9 -------------------brenden ---------adams---------------musah we can add Reyna in there as a libero and adams and musah could go forward on the opposite side of where Gio is at any particular time in the game. Agasint Nederland there was a point at which Ferreira got the ball to his feet in the box and he turned around and sent a pass back to the center circle (almost, anyway). Aaronson ain't doing that.
Against tactical flexibility? Dude was arguing we just needed to put the highest value tranfermarkt players on the field. Isn't it weird how no coach does that ever? I wonder why.
I guess the concepts of rotating the squad or implementing a tactical approach to not marginalize two of our best players are difficult to understand. Let’s just keep force fitting that 4-3-3 that hasn’t consistently produced goals and was exposed by the Netherlands.
It's just sort of a rotating cycle of non-arguments from you, isn't it? You can always tell the weak arguments because you've posted the same thing like 30 times ... and when anyone digs down to how, you know, players would need to be replaced or how it would actually play ... you just go "oh, he's like our best player because transfermarkt said so." I don't know if you think this is convincing at all, but it's not to anyone that engages at anything more interesting than the most superficial of levels. You've made about 85 posts just like this but I don't think you've posted once how'd you actually set up and just why it would work.
A flexible 4-3-2-1 does the trick. Keeps the strong trio of MMA but puts a flexible, creative, and interchangeable attacking spear in front of them. The Liverpool attacking spear of Mane, Firmino, and Salah is the prototype: Weah Pulisic Gio Musah Adams McKennie Jedi Ream Zimmerman Dest Turner Pulisic Weah Gio Musah Adams McKennie Jedi Ream Zimmerman Dest Turner Pulisic Weah Gio Musah Adams McKennie Jedi Ream Zimmerman Dest Turner Does not solve the problem of does Berhalter know how to create a scheme that gets the attacking spear touches in the part of the field that they can be dangerous? Aimless crosses into the box is still useless even with that flex formation and talented attackers!
Your argument is about one step removed from claiming that our manager should be guided by EA FIFA ratings, which are after all also (very poorly) correlated with "quality." It's that stupid and that baseless, especially seeing as we didn't actually sit in a 433 the whole time. At this point you're simply arguing to argue.
Well obviously FIFA ratings can't manage the team. Could FIFA ratings pick a better roster, which some coach could then, uh coach? Maybe. Or if not FIFA ratings (because that's a video game and the whole point is this is supposed to be an insultingly outrageous idea), some other metric that is at least somewhat objective. Take personal bias out of it. Does Gregg Berhalter even get the coaching job if his brother isn't high-ranking USSF exec Jay Berhalter? Or if he's not pals with a bunch of former USMNT guys? Including pals going back to high school with legend and HoFer Claudio Reyna? Does another coach treat his kid differently, not just before/during/after the infamous incident but over the last few years? It would be interesting to see if some algorithm looked at hundreds of qualified candidates throughout the world and spit out the name "Gregg Berhalter"... something tells me it would not!
As a national team manager it’s about leveraging the available talent at your disposal, and Gregg has failed at that. Transfermarkt value is an independent, objective assessment of relative player value. When your second and third most valuable players are 15th and 13th in minutes played in the WC, it’s not maximizing your assets. These are established quality players, worth 25% of our total team valuation, and not only on potential. It’s not just about transfermarkt values - they’re just one reference point. Aaronson has arguably been the best USMNT club player the past few months, and he’s been one of the most productive players for the US with 6 G, 5 A. And with Reyna, you have a Champions League player who many feel is the best player in our pool. It’s one thing if these two guys are relegated to the bench if the attack is productive, however we struggled not just to score goals but generate high quality chances. It’s not my job to figure out how to best utilize our talent, it’s Berhalter’s, and the proof is in the pudding. Myself and other posters have already suggested several other lineups and formations that could have been tried, like Weah at the 9. A weak argument is to continue to shill for a system that we know doesn’t work well.
First it was Weah was the only one who could fill that RW position in the 4-3-3 and stretch the defense, and now it’s we didn’t play 4-3-3 the whole time. Keep moving those goalposts. I never said to create a lineup based on transfermarkt values or Fifa rankings. Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
As to what else GGG could've done, if he had felt there was no quality depth behind 'MMA' in central midfield, he could've played 4231. Platoon McKennie and Musah at one of the '2' spots. Adams starts with Acosta getting sub's minutes at the other '2' spot. Play Aaronson or Pulisic at a-mid.
The Netherlands were a far more talented and professionally-seasoned team than we were. They beat us in a knockout game in the World Cup and it requires this kind of analysis? It’s totally the wrong analysis.
It was pretty obvious how great the drop-off is after the top guys came off. McKennie, Musah, Dest, Pulisic, Weah, etc…there is a major talent gap.
Does Scaloni get the Argentina job if not for the same? How about Regragui? What algorithm spits out those names?
The professional levels of the Dutch players were similar to the US players'. Average age of the Dutch starting XI was 2.7 years older. Your 'analysis' doesn't comport with anything approaching reality.
Stop deflecting from your nonsense position with ridiculous strawmen. I wasn’t responding to nor defending some other “dude.” YOU said “[Aaronson and Reyna] were kept on the bench by our best attacker and our second-best attacker who most benefits our spacing.” This is only true if you have zero tactical flexibility and can’t find a way to get more than two attacking players on the pitch (when the four relevant choices we are discussing are versatile and capable of playing multiple roles).
For example, Reyna and Aaronson. A little behind, de la Torre. 3G's exhausted his side as if there were no back-ups, but that is because 3G's is a myopic fool.
I did not actually say that. We had five players committed to the attack. I don't think it is a sign of my "tactical inflexibility" that you don't think of Sergino Dest committed to the attack, but he was. Same with Jedi. Attacking fullbacks are a thing. I've laid this out in a significant amount of detail numerous times, but I'll do it one last time and see if I get a response that isn't "transfermarkt." Here's my thoughts. You'll note that they aren't definitive -- there are always alternatives, but my point isn't necessarily that Berhalter is 100% right, but that his choices make rational sense once you look past FIFA ratings. I agree with Berhalter's general decision to only commit five to the attack unless we were behind. This is particularly true in the group stage as we're managing to the group. I did not and do not see a reason to weakness the defense, especially in the center of the field, but committing a CM strongly to the offense in addition to CP, Weah, the CF, Jedi and Dest. We were facing strong counter attack teams; leaving space in the middle by pressing too high would be a bad idea. This seems to be one option people like -- a 4231 -- but I don't see a lot of description of whether both fullbacks still bomb up. If so, I think our defense gets disconnected easily and we are more vulnerable to counters. It may have worked against Iran and Wales, but would have been a terrible mistake against England. I also think CP > Brenden and Gio. I think Weah isn't necessarily better in the absolute, but this teams lacks verticality and width, and frankly, he's probably our best in front of goal. I think Dest is as strong or stronger of a playmaker. You may disagree on all of these, but either way, replacing one of these three with Aaronson or even a non-whiny Reyna to me is not a substantial upgrade. That leaves two short term and a bunch of longer preferred options if I really wanted to get Reyna or Aaronson on the field. One is to keep Jedi home and player Reyna or Aaronson over Musah or McKennie. It's an option. I think a couple things need to happen there to make that work. Jedi provides width on the left, so if you bring Reyna or Aaronson central, Pulisic will likely need to push out a bit to make some room. That's fine and viable. Central defense will be a bit weaker, but Jedi can help support. I think Aaronson makes this an offensive improvement in transition, but in possession, I think it doesn't help a ton. A non-whiny Reyna may help both. On both cases, we likely lose control of the center of the field and our core defense weakens. Trade-offs. McKennie was one of our best players with World Cup -- for all the discussion of transfermarkt values and the such, taking McKennie or Musah off doesn't really raise valuations, does it? The second option is the false 9 or a 4312. It's a pretty big shift in some ways -- there's no central attacker forward so the wingers need to play that role. They can go wide at times, but need to be inside to score. It could frankly function not that differently than our current set up with Sargent. The downsides here are pretty simple: aerial play and set pieces disappear. While Wright and Sargent weren't great making runs, that's gone and you are trying to pit very small CP and a skinny Weah up against the Van Dykes in the box. Runs from the wingers are now the primary job of the CBs -- there's no CF as decoy. Reyna is more offensively talented than Sargent, so there's upside, though. (Of course, he had little time to really learn the set up, play with others, was clearly not 90 minutes fit, and was not exactly trying the first week in Qatar, sooooo.) Going to a completely different set up -- 4321, 4222, 442 diamond, etc. I suppose all doable. I think there's a lot of good ideas out there. Some -- should we have dropped the CF and done a counterattacking team around Brenden, Weah and CP a while back? Maybe -- that doesn't sound bad at all. It's not a recipe for a dominant offense -- that's a gameplan more akin to straight Red Bull ball. But it's a viable choice -- I don't know that it is superior. I saw someone popped out a 4321 -- we actually ran a 2-1 top versus Northern Ireland. That version was Pefok with Reyna and Pulisic -- a route one version. An option, though not super exciting. Also note: a Christmas tree doesn't get everyone on the field anyway. TLDR: There's lots of options, but they come down to 3 options really: Commit six instead of five to the regular attack and remove McKennie or Musah. Not a fan because McKennie and Musah are very good, and I think the offensive increase is only worth the defensive decrease if you are trailing. Replace CP, Weah, Musah or McKennie with BA or Reyna. I don't see a full upgrade there, particularly because I think you need Weah because he's one of the few players we have that play off ball well. Replace the striker with someone -- false 9, Weah, two speedy strikers, whatever. It's an option. We actually did play it for a short while with the false 9. I think some of the choices would have required a longer runway to get right. But it's a viable option and I've said so. What is not an argument is talking about high transfermarkt values on the bench without talking about who'd you replace. Or saying, oh, it's easy, if you have tactical flexibility. Give specifics. We have a ton of talent that tends to play the same positions and even moreso, many of the same roles. Tell me who you bench because even if you cram everyone into a 442 diamond or run a Christmas tree, someone valuable is on the bench.