Roger Milla is 70. Damn I feel old. Is he still an option for Cameroon with a 26 man roster? Back on topic. Nice job by Gio finishing his run on that goal today.
I made a similar post in the Yanks Abroad thread but: Mamma's Boy has done well in two matches as a second half sub, if only he had been as motivated during the WC.
Gio gets in trouble for loading in practice. Zimmerman couldn't be bothered to set up a wall in an actual game.
Pretty clever of Berhalter if he realized post-WC that his only, very slim chance of returning was this off-balance, desperation half-court shot at the buzzer. I’m 100% ready to move on from GB, but we all (should) want that to be on the merits. “He did well but not well enough - we can do better next cycle with the talent we have.”
Maybe I should quote people, but it's important to remember in these jokes about "super sub Gio" that what we saw for minutes in the group stage was after his attitude "issue" and punishment. Who knows what the real plan was before, but I doubt it was as limited as we saw.
Last game, golazo, the latest as a poacher. Love to see them both, a bit like Dempsey when a player can score any kind of way. Reyna always seems to be in the mix, even with the Nats he's often in the middle of the action or circling close by ready to pounce. It's a great quality.
I'm still interested to know what exactly went down between Berhalter and the Reynas because it seems the bad blood had been simmering for months, and these are old friends! To me at least, this seems to have started well before the World Cup, even if that's when it blew up. But anyway I agree, Berhalter did okay. He did the job of solidifying the D and getting us back to the World Cup. Given our group and talent, we should have made it to the knock out stage, and we did. However, nothing in those four years showed that he has any idea of how to turn possession in chances. It's not even the lack of goals at times, because I can't hang the fact we are desperate for a striker on him, but that we often barely created much danger. A lot of possession with nothing at the other end doesn't really unnerve opposition, and lots of times even Concacaf minnows look fairly happy to concede possession to us. He did alright, but if we are ambitious at all, we need a new coach who can bring in some new ideas for the offense.
Props for the 2nd paragraph. I don't agree w/the first, clearly some do want him to fail (that piece is my area of disagreement). That 2nd paragraph is gold though, nice lol, only problem, we need Gio delivering the set pieces, so he wouldn't have finished no matter what plan was executed (assuming we had enough sense to have him kicking the corners, which we clearly wouldn't have as they were defaulting to hero Pulisic corners as a strategy of unthinking generalized stupidity).
Well part of the problem here is that anyone with eyes can see that Reyna's potential in terms of ceiling is the highest in the program, and that when fit, he's one of the best We don't just have that Reyna quote, we also have a source from a source via Doyle, before it happened (or after the Wales game, can't remember which) that told Doyle from inside the US camp, "Don't expect to see much of Reyna at all" before the melt down itself happened. So the 7 minutes out of 270 may not have been exactly the plan, but its 100% wrong to think that Reyna was the first off the bench attacking sub. It's emphatically clear that he wasn't. Why? I have no idea? Maybe Berhalter was gun shy because Reyna had gotten injured in September, re-injured in Feb, re-injured in early April, re-injured in September '22, or maybe he just felt Reyna wasn't match fit yet (which doesn't make a lot of sense considering all the minutes he played from October 11th through November 11th). The only thing Im positive about, is that if Reyna had handled things perfectly, at best, his minutes in the group stage would've likely totaled 10-15 (Morris sub on vs Wales+ England minutes). It was always going to be some level of stupid, the use of minutes withdrawal as a punishment makes sense, the fact that he was going to only get 10-15 minutes and was behind Aaronson doesn't (Aaronson had cooled off considerably by November with Leeds) make a ton of sense to me, and its probably going to look much worse over time. Otoh, in many ways, Reyna was just really unlucky. He got terribly injured at nearly the worst possible time (and if he really wants to understand the idea of gratitude he should consider the fate of Hoppe's former teammate, Amine Harit, who injured his ACL w/just a half hour left before he'd fly out to the World Cup. Dude not only went down he went down minutes before he'd be safely ready to join his teammates for what turned out to be the greatest moments in the history of Moroccan soccer) and as a result, his 2022 World Cup, hopefully the first of four or five was largely a dead loss. It sucks, but like I said, he can look at guys like Harit this tournament, or guys like John O'Brien, and note how much can turn on a dime. He's just 20, a lot of time left, and we do need to note ourselves, in terms of injury, the USMNT was the healthiest it had ever been in the five years since Couva for that World Cup. We will not be so lucky again in June and July 2026, teams never are. Just consider oft-injured Pulisic, who in limited minutes, couldn't even make it a month post winter break before getting injured yet again (and I don't blame him for it). I am fascinated by all the crap we see from older than me gen x'er and boomer journo's though. LA Times recently trashed him, now Beau Dure shows up on twitter saying he wouldn't bring him to the march camp. It's fascinating how ex post facto these guys are w/punishments. Curious what will happen come March, really hope we're not that ----ing stupid and self-defeating.
I think I've come across as one of the more old-timey in terms of team play, acting professional, coachability, etc. in terms of those things being really, really important. But I don't get the punishment angle. I believe in team play for a number of reasons -- I think it wins; I believe in respecting others, etc. And I think people need to show actual remorse through improved actions. But punishment for punishment's sake? What's the point? To get your own jollies off or prove you are better? How the heck is Gio supposed to show he's grown, taken the feedback to heart, and is working on being a better teammate if he isn't there? It's the opposite: he HAS to be there.
I don't know how many more there are but I'm 110% sure there is at least one other source because Doyle said we would barely see him play on an MLS Extra Time Podcast, I can't remember if it was before, or after the Wales game, but he said a source in the team told him that Reyna would (trying to remember, it was 2 months ago) not get much time at all or something to that effect. He was never going to be the first attacking sub off the bench, period and I think that's a reasonable summation based on Reyna's poor reaction, Doyle's sourcing, and what actually happened.
By all accounts, this was all dealt with and resolved during the tournament. No player or member of the coaching staff has given any indication that this is still an issue, or that Reyna deserves more punishment than what he already received. Every player and coach on and off the record has indicated this has been resolved, with several players indicating this wasn't really that big a deal or anything they hadn't seen before. If you're inclined to punish him further, I'm assuming it has to be because of his parents' subsequent actions and not his, particularly given that there's no evidence he was involved in that.
I thought I recalled something like that as well, but the only thing I can find is Doyle talking after the Wales game, and he says he was told not to expect too much of Gio Reyna this tournament because the hamstring is not fine. Clearly, that was already after everything had gone down, so it isn't very relevant to the original plan.
Yep and it was a consistent problem for Berhalter. In '19 there were barely any USMNT players one might argue looked better for country than club (or looked equally good), perhaps just Morris. In 2021 that could still be said of the attack, by '22 I had some hope in the spring and summer but the attack was sleepy again at the world cup in terms of chance generation significantly below the levels registered by vastly inferior attacks in 2010 and 2006 WC's. The Mourinho rumors definitely would not speak well of the org. Bad w/young players (same issue as Tata, old, so no longer trusts young players when they make mistakes), and defensive to a fault. We need a coach whose known for his attacking acumen, and not leaking goals (so opposite of Dortmund). We don't need a "name".
I can deal with people describing this in a lot of ways, but the one thing everyone should agree upon is that the games were mishandled in a way we've never, ever seen before. The US were dominant to the point of borderline crushing Wales and Iran if they could just have turned their chance creation #'s up and not finished as horribly as they did in WC Qualifying. The peformances against Wales and Iran in the first half were well and truly dominant. The 2nd half performances in both games, particularly in the last half hour were catastrophically bad. Like, as bad as the opening half hour or so against Czech Republica in '06 level bad. Lets remember that beyond the stupid penalty wales dominanted chance creation in the 2nd half after bringing lurch in. In the 2nd half against Iran there were a litany of open headers, spilled rolling balls, and half chances Iran pummeled against our defense and goal box and just could not get them in. The approach egg used worked in all of 1 game, England, and would have lead to a win if not for yet more bad finishing, but against Wales and Iran the game model could not have been: Lets kick their a-- in the first half, and then give the game away in the second. It will always be difficult to evaluate this world cup because the play we saw for a half against Wales and Iran was spectacular, and a game against England was mostly superb, but the 2nd halves were putrid. What do you even call that? And of course the reason the second halves were bad, in part (lack of resting players) fully came to bear against the Netherlands. So, in analyzing it, it's nearly impossible to describe, its a rare case where the team was truly jeckle and hyde all tournament by design and lack of rotation. In the end, it was another example of Egg screwing up the depth/back end of the roster royally and having it impact things far more than many backers argued it would at the time. We had nobody he trusted to cover issues at CM, he was woefully stupid in terms of his perception of how to handle rotation and rest at RB and LB, and of course the team continued to struggle to generate chances and remained terrible w/finishing.
I don't think it's "okay boomer" to think that a player should have to sit some for acting like a complete ---- in some melt down that his own teammates think justified sitting multiple games for. It's aint that. What I take umbrage at is the idea that after his teammates and coaches said he came correct in November, that the new staff (or old staff returning) should ex post facto punish his --- again for it, just to rubber stamp their new administrations culture on things. For me if a coach did that, I'd fire him the next minute after he annouced the punishment, it's double jeopardy mixed with ex post factor horse ---- and absurd and would actually worsen the chemistry and culture of the team and breed distrust and resentment. It makes zero sense to me.
Okay so how do we take that? Lol. I think hamstring is a euphemism. That's the other piece that's funny though, was there any real injury? Tightness? Was that the grassy knoll/second shooter/warren commission agreed upon excuse to cover for his punishment, or was their real tightness? I tend to think the former, conspiratorial yes, but it sounds like bs, and I remember Conrad saying, when JAB wasn't coming due to "back concerns" that the "back" was a known bull---- cover sometimes used for "other, personal, reasons".
I don't. One of the commonalities of the end of all these games and losing control was that McKennie couldn't go 90. I know people hate playing defensively and doing things like putting in an extra centerback or sitting back, but it is a common and viable strategy that is more nerves-inducing than "mishandling." We got 4 points of those games and got out of the group, and the only reason we didn't have 6 was an uncharacteristically bad decision / vision by Zimmerman. I'm sure there are quibbles, but I don't know how this can be epic mismanagement when we got out of the group. Herdman overestimating his team against Croatia was epic mismanagement. We knew going in that our offense was not high powered, and we knew we'd be facing a title contender in England and two teams that bunker. I know the fan reaction to that is to assume that making more offensive decisions solve the problems, but that's not actually necessarily true. In many cases, those changes don't solve your issues; you still have an erratic offense, and the defense weakens. We played a game to where we were as a team. Is where we were partly the fault of Berhalter? Yes, but you can't manage to this platonic ideal where the team is better than it is because people feel it should be. There's plenty to quibble with every coach's decisions, so I am not saying things were perfectly played. But the only strong argument to mismanagement is fatigue, not around playing offensive or many of those choices.
McKennie could go 90 if we weren't playing the style that we did. The coach either needs to be willing and able to rotate players or adapt to a style that doesn't require so much running.
Gio even mentioned that he had experienced tightness when he was saying he was 100%. I'd bet there was some level of tightness. I'd also bet that independent of the meltdown that the coaching and training staff would take that more seriously than Gio in the sense that Gio desperately wanted to play -- if you recall, one of the things leaked/rumored is that Gio refused a fitness check from the trainers. So it's pretty clear to me there was something. (I'd also toss in that it is entirely possible that Reyna simply has lost his starting spot at Dortmund ... but it's also possible that they are taking it very carefully with this hamstring. He's already reinjured it at least once.) I also didn't really think Gio was moving that well when playing. I think it was a concern that he wanted to play through, and they were more hesitant. And then I think it because the ideal cover for not playing him after everything. Which I actually fully support! Count me on we should've never heard of this. Of course, Gio didn't take the cover, which was really primarily for his benefit. Which I think goes to show this was a lot more than just an isolated incident. So in short: I think there was a real issue, but not necessarily something you'd definitely keep him out for. And it became easy cover. In terms of Doyle's comments, then, for this one, at least, we were still in the thick of it, and I think it was leaked to Doyle as cover for Gio not playing. But by the time Doyle was told, shit had already gone down. I *thought* I remembered something earlier from Doyle, and if there was something before the World Cup, that would be different. But I can't find it and am too lazy to go in detail on his twitter.
I doubt it. And I don't think Weston's all that valuable in a lower energy style, anyway. Rotation is valid, but people want to act like defending late with a lead is some insane strategy, or that teams dominate a full game all the time with no back and forth.
It's not that we defended late. It's how we defended late. Tuchel defended for 90 minutes at Chelsea by getting the ball and keeping the ball, even if it meant taking no chances with it whatsoever. I believe we had guys in the pool that could play keepaway for 20-30 minutes at a time to kill off a game. Instead, we subbed on the likes of Morris.
A manager who thought Gio might re-injure himself should have either not played him at all started him or made him an early sub, and perhaps limited his time, because you wouldn't want him to injure himself after all the subs are used definitely not save him for your final sub If I were a bench player on that team, I would have been pulling for Reyna to start at least one of the group matches. Who wants to lose or draw a game that you didn't at least try to use your best weapons?
I guess what it comes down to me is that I think we won those games because of randomness, not because of great planning. Wales didn't finish their chances as we tired, Iran didn't finish a litany of late chances when we tired. That's not great planning to me that's luck. The xG at least according tone one source: Wales 1.48-.92 USA England 0.97-0.88 USA Iran 0.65-1.46 USA So the xG numbers agree w/me on the Wales game but not Iran, I can sort of understand that, and admittedly I haven't watched the game in forever but I remember Iran having numerous late chances, a flash open header at the post, the ball dribbling behind Turner etc that we were very lucky to not give up goals on,but take the xG as you will. In my view, we lost the xG battle in one of those games, pretty substantially and not the other. To my mind anyway, the fact that we could not figure out how to handle CM and rotation, and ran our players into the ground (what was the crazy difference between our miles run and Netherlands heading into that game) made us vulnerable to losing control of games we dominated twice, and then lead to a total pratfall against the Netherlands (which is a particularly weird game that stands almost outside time, itself-our best xG game by far, and our worst defensive performance since Fall 2019-utterly bizarre). So we'll just disagree here, period on this.