What 20's and 17's would you have preferred Arena to look at? Of Arena's choices which do you think were the worst (and therefor the players that would be replaced by the 20's and 17's). thanks
You may also need to research how many 17,18 19 year olds have gone on to big things for any team at the World Cup. Many of the greats were bench sitters at that age if even on the roster. If they're too young then US prospects likely are too. I wonder how many other teams worldwide will have a player as young as Pulisic getting major minutes?
I for one have been withholding judgement, The performance of the team has been poor. I don't know how anyone can say otherwise. We'll see how it is going forward with more continuity (I assume) and fewer excuses. As far as evaluation goes, how successful it is/has been will be determined in the future (qualifying/WC). As some have said, a failure in the GC is not necessarily a failure if it gives information that helps going forward. If Arena learns more about the limitations/strengths of a player and is able to adjust strategies going forward to minimize weaknesses and/or maximize strengths that is a success. If Arena learns that a player is not ready or able to help the team and avoids utilizing him because of that it is a success even though that player failed in the GC. Obviously any player that is identified as one that can help the USMNT going forward is a success but rating the success or failure is going to be more nuanced and subjective than whether or not we win the tournament. Regardless of how it ends up, there will be many on both sides. Because Arena now has a stated goal to win the tournament, I think it is fair to expect nothing less. If we fail to win the GC, I guess it becomes more subjective if we play well but lose anyway and if we win but play poorly, there may be legitimate room for complaint. Overall, with two stated goals, evaluation and winning, the overall grade will be argued for some time.
I watched the u20's and the exceptional players who might be ready for WC level were Glad, CCV ,EPB, Sargent. I use "might" loosely here. We are talking about very young players. We are kinda stacked at cb and Sargent is 17. I have said we could theoretically bring EPB and Sargent to Gold Cup. However, I'm sure the management thought it was more important to sort out how well Gonzo, Hedges, Besler, Miazga were doing. I would have played EPB instead of Acosta. Look at the difference between EPB and Acosta at the U20 tournaments. Acosta was a bust and EPB was captain and well deserved too. It would have been a no brainer for me to call EPB instead of Acosta. EPB played cb exclusively at finals but in semi's he played mid and tore the place up for the trophy. Sargent was 2nd in the Golden boot at U20's and might have won it all if we had beaten Venezuela and advanced.
I would just like to point out that it is entirely possible to like Arena as a coach, want to win the Gold Cup and consider it a success if we do and still think that Trump is a disgusting and ridiculous excuse for a human being and not be a jingoistic mouth breather. No need to conflate all of that together.
The "talent right below Pulisic" was supposed to be nearly as impressive: Fabian, Chandler, Wood, even Morales. And that not counting the flops: Aronjo, Mix, Green. They've not lived up to expectation. The only Europe-based players who have shown some top stuff, besides Pulisic, are Brooks (inconsistent, though) and Cameron. So it's not just a MLS fail, but also a fail of the duals who grew up & learned the sport abroad.
We get to see whether that is on them or Klinsman's coaching. If the German national team guys complained about his tactics then who knows if that was part of they didn't look good.
Consider me chastised. Those calling this Gold Cup group stage a success are more Bushian than Trumpian anyway. In fairness to Bruce I like him also, not his fault the players he gave chances to couldn't handle the likes of Martinique and Guat. Anyway I stand corrected as the OP said:
Please take the political talk somewhere else. The Men's National Team is not a branch of the US government.
There were a number of outcomes that could have transpired in this Gold Cup. 1. Arena didn't give minutes to any new guys. To me that would have been a failure. 2. Arena gave a lot of minutes to a bunch of new guys and several guys really stepped up and are clear favorites to start for the full squad. That would have been the ultimate success. 3. Arena gave a lot of minutes to a bunch of new guys and a few guys played well enough for future consideration and likely to play backup roles. I view this is a success. 4. Arena gave a lot of minutes to a bunch of new guys and the stunk across the board. Now this certainly would not have been a desired outcome but still somewhat of a success. Knowing who not to look at anymore is still good information. Regardless of what happens from here I think we have met #3. Perhaps we should really be discussing this from two different perspectives. a. How did Arena do in the Gold Cup (and this is more how my comments have been directed)? b. How did the players do in the Gold Cup? I think Arena has done a great job in giving lots of players a lot of minutes. Some of his subs (especially last night) have been a bit odd but he has done what needed to be done to setup the next qualifying camp. Now I AM quite disappointed in most of the new guys.
True. So the duals living up to potential are reduced to Jones (on the way out) and Brooks (who's still iffy). Pulisic is also a local product (Pennsylvania Classics).
The more I think about it, the more I believe that at the World Cup, we have to make the switch to a 3-man central midfield, be it a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1. It's tough to overstate how poor our last three opponents are...93, 137, and 95 in the world by ELO. And, um, we didn't look great for large stretches of time. A large part of that problem resides in the balance of the midfield (a problem since the start of this cycle.) I feel like a 3-man mid plays to the strengths of, say, Bradley-Nagbe-Acosta or Bradley-Nagbe-Pulisic moreso than a 2-man central midfield. Aside from Rowe, I haven't seen guys who can provide width in a 4-4-2 and connect the lines. If we're going to push Zardes, Morris, or Wood out wide, at least make it in an attacking role instead of auxiliary midfielder.
I hate having to say this, but at some point we're going to need Bedoya in the midfield. Yes, the guy is terrible when we're trying to attack. But when we're mostly defending, he has the mobility and stamina to plug several holes. I wouldn't want to face teams like Spain, Argentina, Brazil or Germany without Bedoya's defensive jack-o'-all-trades workhorse routine.
I think I'll go with Williams. Excels as an 8, higher work rate than Bedoya, a physical machine in his prime who's improved and who unlike Bedoya, will be facing some of the top clubs and attackers in the world leading into the WC. I don't buy the "hasn't looked good for the NT" argument either. He was shuffled around, never got a real chance, suffered and injury but now is a clear level above what he was then. And if folks like Arena, wouldn't the assumption be he can take a quality player like Williams and got some good use out of him? Anyway, I somewhat hope for a Bradley/Williams/McKennie midfield in Russia since there's no way Arena is dropping Mikey. If it's a year too early for McKennie I guess Nagbe instead but I'll be flexible on that.
Shortly after the 2014 World Cup, I wrote on some thread that I though Danny Williams would be a key player this cycle. That hasn't turned out so far. There is still time, though. He needs to play well this Fall and needs an opportunity with the A-team. I could see value in a 3-man central midfield built around the quartet of Bradley, Williams, Nagbe, and Acosta. Pulisic could fit as a pure ACM, too, or as a second striker. 4-3-3, or 4-5-1, or maybe the 3-5-2. To me, guys like Bedoya and McCarty are purely late-game depth to preserve a result for the remainder of the 2014 Cup cycle.
We have dredged the MLS depths in this tourney. I hope we see another round of trials that include youth players and second/third tier Euros. Guys I would like to see get a run out in the right circumstances: Lynden Gooch Emerson Hyndman Danny Williams Terrence Boyd Aaron Johannson Jonathan Klinsmann Weston McKennie Alfredo Morales Ashton Goetz Kenny Saief Julian Green Haji Wright Andrew Carleton Joshua Sargent Joshua Perez
Herein lies the problem. I don't have an issue with your list. The problem is I don't see how there is enough time left (only 11 months to Russia) to try so many different players. 1. We can't try a bunch of guys in qualifying. We only have two more sets and qualifying isn't a sure thing yet. 2. We might have enough friendlies to try a bunch or more guys. but here's the key. 3. I don't think we have the time to both figure out if any of these guys have a role AND integrate them into main roster. Totally agree we need to continue to look for help. But I think Arena is going to have to go by what he sees all these guys do with their clubs and way pair down to a handful or so that he actually brings into camps.
Yes, I think you're correct on the time crunch issue and the necessity to use club observation as the main mode of evaluation. However, I think back to 2002 and 2014. The 2002 team featured 2 up-and-coming youth players who did not have much of a club track record, but added speed,fearlessness and attacking strength to the squad: Beasley and LD. Those players had to be dug up and looked at in camps. In 2014 it was Yedlin, who was viewed as being a fringe national team player with little chance of getting call ups when he was selected. He added the same things: speed, fearlessness and attacking strength. This team will need some degree of an infusion of the new. Its time to start rolling guys out to partner with Pulisic.
Donovan debuted with the US in 2000 and also played 8 matches in 2001. he had played in the Olympics and started 22 matches with San Jose in 2001. DMB received his first cap in January 2001. He was into playing his third full MLS season in 2002. I am not saying some new players can't be incorporated, and I agree some good young talent is always needed. However, we might have to narrow how many we can truly look at. This is even more difficult because we still have to qualify. Might need to prioritize who can be a difference maker versus who will be battling somebody as a close-levle back up.