Will any of the Hex teams, besides the USA if current trends continue, consist of majority domestic players? "Vast majority"? Mexico's full team might have 6-8 Liga MX players. Hardly, a "Vast majority". Costa Rica probably has 5-7 domestic players. Hardly, a "Vast majority". Jamaica probably has 2-4 domestic players. Hardly, a "Vast majority". El Salvador will probably have domestic players in the range of recent USMNT rosters. Honduras will probably have 7-8 domestic players. Hardly, a "Vast majority". I would say, based on that, that the USMNT is constructing its roster like the most talent deprived CONCACAF teams. I would say that you are not only wrong, but the opposite of what you say is true. That the only teams that will have a majority domestic roster are those teams from a country with a top 4 league. France had 7 domestic players on their 2018 roster. Hardly, a "Vast majority". Denmark had 7 domestic players on their 2018 roster. Hardly, a "Vast majority". Looking at non-EU teams Australia had 3 domestic players on their 2018 roster. Hardly, a "Vast majority". Morocco had 2 domestic players on their 2018 roster. Hardly, a "Vast majority". Iran had 9 domestic players on their 2018 roster. Hardly, a "Vast majority". Uruguay had 2 domestic players on their 2018 roster. Hardly, a "Vast majority". Japan had 8 domestic players on their 2018 roster. Hardly, a "Vast majority". Again, your premise is just not supported by any facts I can find. Teams with a "Vast Majority" of domestic players are England, Germany, Spain, Italy and teams that are very very poor (think Saudi Arabia, El Salvador), and the USA.
Continuing this: the two teams next to us in the FIFA rankings are Wales and Ukraine. Wales just played a big qualifier and they fielded a roster with only one domestic player, the third GK. Ukraine, similarly, just played a big qualifier and they fielded a roster with 15 domestic players. Now, here we have found a country that is fielding a team similar to the USMNT under Gregg (and Arena in 2017). The only wrinkle is that every one, every one, of the Ukranian players, playing domestically, play for Dyanmo Kiev or Shaktar Donetsk. Shaktar is currently in the Champions League and Kiev was in it last year. Shaktar is ranked #14 in UEFA and Kiev #22 currently. Hardly comparable to playing for LA Galaxy. There was one Ukranian player, that plays domestically, and not in the Champions League, and that is the third GK.
Ironically, some of the hex teams will be majority MLS. Or have some of their best players there. The whole Europe / MLS thing is completely overdone, especially as long as we are losing to CONCACAF teams rolling out mostly MLS/USL rosters. The attacking talent in MLS, in particular, would roll CONCACAF. We simply need better players, regardless of where they play. Picking your Best XI based on league -- or even worse, continent of league -- isn't going to give you your best XI.
That is a different argument. But the best French players don't play in France. Saying, "we need better players regardless of where they play" is a red herring. The best players will be playing in one of four leagues. The best players not in those leagues, will be playing in the Champions League or Europa League for teams that consistently play in those competitions. Picking the best domestic players would be a start. Gregg doesn't even do that. The usual straw man of comparing picking Bundesliga players to Kosovar League players. MLS attacking talent is not American. It is not even a high level in the great scheme of things. Vela was a good player on a mid-table Spanish team. Pozuelo was on a mid-table Belgium team. These are not Champions League caliber players. Rooney went from MLS to the English Championship. Zlatan is rumored headed for Hammarby. They would "roll" Cuba or Martinique or Nicaraqua, sure. But what is the point in that? The point I was responding to is that EVERY national team is mostly made up of domestic players. That is not true and that the USMNT has been 70% from MLS is a problem, not an expectation.
I think Morris can be a solid striker for us. Never said otherwise. After Excellency, I’m one of the biggest fans of his on this board. Great IQ, great right foot, power and pace. But try as he might, my eyes tell me he’s a bad defender whether pressing at the spearhead or aiding the FB. Not enough lateral movement and not enough engine. Nothing you posted empirically supports Morris being a good pressing striker. I’ll see what I cab muster up for Sargent but I doubt that I’ll find it.
Midfielders cover more ground than forwards--a lot more. That and the numbers Morris has posted 'empirically' support the suggestion that he would be both good at pressing and effective at scoring from the striker position. I'm not sure what laterally movement has to do with any of this. He wouldn't be tasked with defending 1v1. I didn't see anything from coaches singling out Sargent's work rate for praise. But 3G did say- https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-...t-on-united-states-striker-of-the-future-role https://sbisoccer.com/2019/10/morri...smnt-and-sounders-after-embracing-winger-role
Only 3 actually ...and William Kvist got injured in the very first game at the WC and was out for the rest of the tournament and retired shortly after. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#Denmark
interesting. I don’t think we can have four players on the pitch who aren’t known for their defensive abilities (Pulisic, Sargent, Weah, Reyna) against a good team however.
point taken but I’d argue that Donovan was a decent defender (better than today’s four) and our back seven was better defensively as well. Just wondering, did we play this setup vs Mexico or better teams and how did we do? Thanks.
I totally agree. However every team has a scheme for covering backs who attack. Some slide defensive mids over others drop a defensive mid sort of back to CB temporarily and so far GB's main tactic is to slide the CB's over and add the left back as another CB. So he has looked for LB's who can also play CB in a pinch. I don't love the scheme but do understand it is a scheme and it doesn't allow for attacking LB's. He now has a dilemma with Dest. As an outside back he is the best at left or right back but there are much better right backs than left backs at the moment. That means choosing a pedestrian Ream or below average Lovitz over Cannon or Yedlin if Dest plays right back. If he chooses the two best outside backs then he needs to change his scheme and his patterns. I think Dest is a big enough talent that he may be forced to do just that. He also could do it based on opponent but that forces Dest to switch sides back and forth which is a lot to ask of a 19 year old in his first season on a first team.
We played this setup against pretty much everyone that year in competitive games after it worked well against Egypt (including against Spain, Brazil, and Mexico.) We continued with a variation of it the following year in the World Cup, with less success due to Findley filling in for the injured Davies. We consistently scored and also gave up a lot of goalscoring opportunities. (We dominated Egypt, pulled off a stunning upset against Spain, and led Brazil and Mexico before giving up late goals that sunk us.) It was fun to watch, but probably only worth it because we had a number of goalscoring threats that made up for what we sacrificed on defense, and even replacing Davies with Findley probably tipped that balance in the other direction. Which is not to take away from Donovan's and Dempsey's defensive effort which I think were both underrated, but the entire setup and tactical approach made for pretty wild and wide open encounters.
———Sargent—-Weah———- Pulisic——————Morris/Arriola On this front four, I don’t know if Morris has the defensive chops but I do believe Pulisic is good enough. Also, while I rate Morris over Arriola, the fact is that Paul Arriola is an elite level defensive winger. It’s just his offensive contribution sucks.
With With Wes and Adams as the two behind them I think they’ll be alright. Those two cover an absurd amount of ground. The empty bucket would certainly be interesting with this group.
Updated equivalent of the '09 quartet would be: ---------------Morris------Sargent-------- ------Pulisic--------------------------Dest---- Pulisic would be the Dempsey equivalent.
thanks for the reminder. As I mentioned, I don’t love the lack of defense as it’s to our disadvantage to get into a shootout with a good team. sorta puts to lie the bunker bob criticism, no?
When Bunker Bob went rogue. It was an exciting line up and I thought Donovan always took his defensive duties seriously when it came to tracking back and getting in passing lanes. But, no doubt the formation could get exposed while providing great counter options.
Yeah, I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you on the makeup of teams. I think, though, that the causal relationship here is backward, oftentimes. Our players aren't not as good because they play in MLS; our players often play in MLS because they aren't as good. (Yes, before there's a rant on player selection, there's a few things Berhalter is clearly wrong on -- namely LB where there may be a better European option. But we're not exactly fielding 20+ Big 4 players here).
Point taken. I should have spoken more precisely. But I would still argue a couple points. You rightly honed in on "vast majority" but seem to neglect the exceptions I pointed out are pretty large (and the USA does not fit into them). Further, there are other issues with the US that neither of us got into that do not make it an apples to apples comparison. 1) Some of the countries you mention are former colonies and get EU passports fairly easily. Any country whose domestic players can get foreign passports easily (like I said) and therefore not run afoul of foreign player limits, are going to go to better (foreign) leagues at a higher rate. Carribbean colonial minnows (Suriname, Curacao, etc), certain African/Asian nations (especially the French ones if the player speaks French), some of SA (Brazil), and all of the EU nations fall into this category. 2) I should have said non-crap instead of functional. Players will usually try to find the best league they can play in, though cultural, family, and playing time issues are also a factor. The problem is that MLS is a dead end league for most US players. Take say, Costa Rica. Good Costa Rican players can move to Europe, but also have the option to move to better, more lucrative leagues in the region (USA, Mexico). The latter even fits them culturally (though pockets of the US are fine) and generally with style of play. This movement creates open spots in the CR league, which are filled by players making a jump up from inferior regional leagues (say El Salvador, Nicaragua). But for US players, there are issues. There is basically only one league above ours where players fit culturally (language), and that is England. And the work permit rule/passport rule effectively puts a ceiling on the number of US players who can play there. There are no regional steps up for US players. I guess Mexico/Brazil/Arg in terms of quality of play. But the latter two are financially unstable, there are language/culture issues, and the standard of living in all those countries is a step down from the US. There is also a sylistic issue with HOW US players play (not technical enough). And some anti-US bias there as well. 3) The biggest issue is simply that the present generation of players (25-30) simply is not good enough to make the step up to a better league. Or basically equivalent to other players who do not burn a foreign slot, thus not impactful enough to make the move. This generation of US field players is almost wholly without Euro success. There are no Reyna's, Harkes', McBride's, DMB's, Cherundolo's, Gooch's, Bocanegra's, Cameron's, Dempsey's, Davies', JOB's, Stewart's, etc. Heck, even Sanneh, Lalas, Berhalter, Hejduk level stuff is a bar virtually none of the 25-30's can clear. The only exceptions are either German/Americans (Brooks) or near washed (Bradley/Altidore). You are going to have to wait for Pulisic, Adams, Dest, McKennie, Ledezma, Weah, & the others to step up. 4) Or perhaps, it is perception of the big leagues in Europe that MLS/American players are not good enough. So MLS/USA players are often stuck. Mexico dealt with this problem for a long time. In the near past, most of their National team was made up of domestic players. Big time Euro leagues were snobby towards them, and to some degree BRA & Arg as well (though those leagues may not be much better than Mexico's). It was only when Mexican players started to succeed at the highest levels (Hernandez, Herrera, etc) that the floodgates started to open. The success of the youth teams and the Fed realizing they had plateaued (Round of 16!) also changed the Feds outlook on keeping players/letting them go. 5) Taking a snapshot can be misleading. While many Dutch national players may not currently play in the Eredivisie, they did recently, were groomed there, and then move on for big $$ (easily done with EU status). Ditto France. For us, is a guy who plays a big chunk of his career in Europe and then comes to MLS an MLS player? Think Jermaine Jones. Is Adams an MLS player or a foreign one? Bradley? How about players who go back & forth? Altidore? ------------- Sorry for the length.
Wales is in the EU, that is a different animal. Ukraine is not. One is more like us, the other not. See the difference? See above post for more clairification.
Nope. Surinam people have no access to the Nethelands at all. Curacao etc. almost only play baseball. They too have no easy access to the Netherlands.