Partisan? Berhalter supporters? Im sorry, but this is soccer not Obama v. Trump. Not interested in turning soccer into a teenage bitchfest.
I specifically said that this was an observation over multiple games. Its funny how people can Rorschach something like this. The Warshaw piece was about noticing the long term patterns that have been developing in the play. People who are interested in tactical soccer should be interested. People who are interested to see if Berhalters gamble pays off and the team takes on a more proactive disposition should be interested. This reduction of things into polarized camps is just not interesting to me.
This was NOT really a dominate match. It was a dominant half and a half where the US proved they cannot, at least yet, self motivate. The second half was a case of the US reverting to playing down to their opposition. That is the US was not really in control of that second half and the only reason Cuba did not get a goal or two was that they were absolutely horrible. I really quality team would not have given Cuba a sniff at goal and they did have several good sniffs that were missed because they were incompetent. We may become a competent team but this poor second half just shows that we cannot, yet, just go into cruse control and still dominate. That is we are still no better than a mid-level CONCACAF team. I know it seems like people like me are looking for negatives BUT, for me, this game was only slightly a positive and that only for one half.
There haven't been multiple games in which we've looked good though, so again, trying to wishcast the illusion of improvement because we trounced a terrible opponent is sort of pointless. Tuesday will be a (marginally) better indication if there looks like any progress toward competence.
Big picture i think few disagree with what you said here. But this thread is for discussing the Cuba match. We played Cuba and not some strong team. We DID some good stuff against Cuba. Will that translate into any real improvements down the road? Who knows but at this match we did show some good stuff. Yes it was Cuba but I am sure as hell glad they did some good stuff against them and didn't play like crap or this thread would be so lit up my PC would probably self implode....lol
Occams razor .... our team needs the best coaching - not GGG our team needs quality (tough) matches consistently - not once in a while ... note for the USSF our team needs players that are fit and ready - scheduling games against minnows is a waste of time and risks injuries and also is an opportunity cost on the entire program with European based players having to endure long jet lag inducing travel ... note for the USSF ... I agree with Bradley and with Klinsmann in this particular issue ... the answer is for Mexico, US, and Costa Rica to band together in a strong position against CONCACAAF and force the issue .... refuse to be a part of the minnow matches ... pretty simply actually - eliminate the minnow matches as much as possible - replace them with tough matches - and only do X matches per year in order to help with injury mitigation and jet lag concerns and our European based players (so their club coaches don't throw a fit when a good American player is part of a 7-0 drubbing which does not nothing for that players development. And eliminate the GGG system - just pick the best players - set them up to perform in their best role - have a good defense - and attack ....
I think most people are with Bradley and Klinsmann on the issue. Let's wait to bash the level of the competition until after this upcoming Canada game, though. I'm of the opinion that a good beat down once in a while in an official competition is good for morale. Particularly with a young group like the one we have. Ya know, in the Euro League of Nations and the European Championships...……….Euro teams face cupcakes too. Its part of the deal. The key is to use the opportunity wisely. I see it as a good opportunity to give games in a meaningful competition to younger and less experienced players. I mean, since we failed to qualify for the World Cup...……….we've played almost every CONMEBOL nation. We've played Uruguay, Venezuela, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, Brazil, Bolivia, and Paraguay. From Europe we've played Portugal, France, England, Italy, etc. We've played a pretty darn tough friendly schedule over the past two years. Its OK for us to give our relatively young squad an easier game.
Yes, if I had claimed that we have improved I would have been getting the cart before the horse. I simply acknowledged the ambitious plight of Berhalter and Earnie Stewart...to change the program-wide reactive tactical philosophy to one of a proactive approach , which is happening right now. I called it Berhalters gamble. Will it work? I don’t know. But it’s coming at a good time...when a solid crop of young players are rising through the ranks preparing ultimately for 2026.
btw, the original post in question was used to laud an article written by a literal shill: Bobby Warsaw at what the poster called mlspropaganda.com. Give me a break.
Sad to say, but Pulisic is no longer "Boy Wonder", or was it wonder boy? Regardless, McKennie is now The Man. It's his team, not Pulisic's, not Bradley's, and he should be wearing the Captain's armband. Might even cool his attitude a bit when tempers flare.
The difference with Pulisic is, he can dribble at and pull 2-3 defenders out of position as we saw against Cuba... against most NT's in the World. The same can't be said for most other players on our team. Against someone tough, they just disappear, and their poor touch lets them down. Admittedly, it wasn't a good game by him, but the idea is that he's got the raw talent to actually be effective against top teams too, even if we all wish he were more clinical, had a better shot, etc.
cause we cant take anything from this match...except positives that will likely never repeat. ps mckennie should be captain regardless, and the last thing i want is for his attitude to cool.
It is sad to say that our coach is dumb enough to put Pulisic on the wing with a midfield of Yeuil, Roldan and Mckennie to get him the ball. Throw in Lovitz at left back and it is pretty clear CP isnt going to get the ball in good conditions. CP has to be central with the flexibility to find the ball with all these sub par players being used. Mckennie had a nice game against Cuba so let's ove react and call him our sqviir.
Thank Allah you're not in charge. No one in Holland is crying about KNVB lobbying Dest to make a one-time switch, w/o even calling into a senior match. No one in Mex is crying about capping JonGon or them making overtures several other of our YNT players. It's really straightforward. Like all resources, youth national team appearances and camps are limited resources. If you're investing those resources into a player, it is only common sense to try to ensure that there will be the best likelihood the player will play for you. Otherwise, what are YNT matches and camps for? You got a guy that is 1) good enough that another NT will come after him? and/or 2) that has talked about the possibility of switching? You're investing precious resources into a person that may go elsewhere. In the case of scenario 1) and certainly scenario 2), it is moronic to fail to determine that players intentions with regard to the USMNT. Absolutely foolish. You offer that guy a cap-tying opportunity - it's a no brainer. No one is forcing the player to accept it. But, if they don't, you know that maybe these precious resources are better invested elsewhere. If the guy is clearly that worth it, maybe you continue to court him. If there is another player that is close to as good, then you invest your resources in that guy. Soto's saying "I'm open to Chile?" Offer him an opportunity to play against Cuba. If he turns it down, then for U-23's, it's "next man up."
A professional team that does not score every goal possible hurts themselves and their fans. I think that people keep going to matches if an entertaining product is placed on the field. Against Cuba the first half was entertaining and the second was, at best, boring. A boring product, which is what the US has placed of the fiend a LOT lately, is what will keep people at home.
The game plan and the opponent were pretty much set up for Yueill to succeed, but he succeed he did. I don't think he or anyone could've been that much better on the day.
Since 1990 Thailand's Woman's National team has qualified to two total world cups and has a total of three points. Costa Rica in the same span has qualified to five world cups. They have a combined 18 points in the group stage from those five world cups. In 1990 they made the round of 16. In 2014 they won a group that contained Uruguay, England, and Italy. They made the quarterfinals. So they average to qualify over twice as much, get twice as many points on average in the group stage than the Thailand team. Comparing Thailand to Costa Rica was dumb. A better comparison would be say like Peru.
Honestly, I think it would be awesome if we didn't qualify. The GC is meaningless now. It would be hilarious for SUM/USSF to take a bath on it because we weren't there. And, it would be hilarious for them to put it on w/o a host nation. And, there would be no excuses for not accepting an invitation to the Copa America, if one were forthcoming. And, it would be a message to the powers that be that, yes, it's possible to f*ck this up. Running the USMNT is not fool proof, and they are the fools to prove it. You can't just dick around a year and a half after you fire the manager, hire Jay's Brother six months into it, but don't tell anyone for another year, so that you don't have to pay the guy. Especially when there are much better options available. And, that would prove to Jay's Brother that instituting an unorthodox system that takes several camps for you to be able to teach, and sticking with some glaringly inferior players because they happened to have been available for the 1st JanCamp and you can't spare the time to get other players up to speed, and threatening to player one of the best players the country has produced out of position, and dogmatically sticking to a failing system & saying it was a "success" when you got your ass drubbed by your rival, and failing to get *any* of your next generation of players committed to the program while the program flounders ……. maybe not qualifying for GC would convince Jay's Brother of some of that.
No that would be a terrible comparison as well. The Peru men's team is made up of professional soccer players who play in actual professional leagues that people care about. So do the US Women. You can't say the same thing about the Thai women's team. Whatever their "professional league" is it has far more in common with the Cuban league than anything we'd consider an actual league. So from that perspective the original Cuba comparison is more accurate even though the Thai women's team has had more success...because very few countries offer a better set up for women's soccer. I personally think we should just refrain from comparing men's and women's teams in general because it really isn't the same sport.
@RalleeMonkey it’s not other federations I’m worried about. it’s other dual nationals. It’s like if a college sports recruiter is always overpromising high school kids. Once the word gets out, his credibility is shot and he can’t recruit anymore.
The game was over in 15 mins. The opponent has lost 5 starters to defection in Canada the week before? He is playing in a different position than he plays in regularly, when he plays. I think he lost interest. Understandable, but not condonable. Yes, he did not look all that connected .
I agree with you. I was trying to make a better comparison using OP's flawed logic, if we were only comparing their standing relative to the rest of their fields. In reality, the Cuba comparison is much more apt and your conclusion much more valid.