The answer is in front of you. Get rid of the 6. Play two 8s with Reyna as the ten in front of them. Weah as the RW and you are done.
It's hard to tell what Johnny plays at, to be honest. Box to box who doesn't track back? Attacking mid who fails to combine? A CM with no role in moving the ball from defense to attack? I've watched him with the NT and still have no idea.
Name such teams and their variety of formations used? Elite teams and coaches use 2 formations. A primary and a secondary. Some coaches have a third but most stick with 2. Due to time together, the club positions for their players and so on.
Where did you learn to frame things in such a deceptive ways? This wasn't about just trying to see if "someone else" could play the role. If that were the case, he would have tried a couple of different guys, but instead it was about forcing an average MLS player on us in the form of Kellyn Fricken Acosta. The guy has 27 caps and the best people can say is he played well at the Azteca 3+ years ago when we went up early, conceded a tying goal with more than 60 mins to go, and then held on for the rest. The team was set up very defensively in a 541 which is very different than how Berhalter is trying to get the team to play now. He has many games for the usmnt where he has struggled. I have shared my opinions many times before and don't think I should need to provide my thesis every window when Berhalter unnecessarily over plays MLS players. From a big picture perspective, I would focus more on potential than settling for guys that won't help us get to the next level, I would have a full time B team that would train and play every FiFA window, and would do whatever possible to eliminate any appearance of a bias towards where players play their club ball. I have had this first opinion since the 2006 cycle. We had just had success at the WC with Donovan and Beasley and there were quite a few younger players that showed promise. It appeared that we might be developing better players at that point and that we should go all in on younger players. This would accelerate these players getting to the international level and relying on them would have highlighted much sooner that the improvement in player development was more an aberration than something systemic. Today it is clear that our u23s are better players than we have ever had and the development as a whole is much better. Put another way, we are on the cusp of rasing our game to higher level and we will reach that goal quicker by focusing on players who can help with that goal than relying on prime aged players who might be good enough for concacaf excluding Mexico. You probably won't believe this but I care the much more about how a player actually plays than where he plays. I fully understand the challenge it would be for a coach to evaluate players across many different leagues of different levels of play, styles, etc. The best way to do that is get players into camps and compare them with each other. I am pretty sure I advocated this since we failed to qualify the olympics in 2015 if not before then. I argued back then that having a B team would mean there was many more spots to get guys into camps and have games to show they deserved a chance with the full usmnt (this team would also double for a u23 team with more focus on younger players in the years leading up to OQ). On the other hand, this could also make being in the usmnt a higher standard. I personally think we can go about q5 or so deep before there is a huge drop off. That group should be the basis who plays and how. The rest of the spots should be guys excelling with the B team who shows promise of stepping up to the level of the top group or guys who can fill limited roles of need. Minutes to these players should be limited to these players and only increased as they prove they are up to the challenge. There were complaints about a bias against MLS players for a while because the coach openly wanted players to challenge themselves (I didn't agree with them but still acknowledge they existed) and then Arena blatantly over relying on MLS players. The one thing I thought Sarachan did very well is call players from everywhere and give them a shot. That brief break ended when Berhalter took over. He has had significant higher threshold for euro based guys to get into the team than MLS players. There are obvious advantages MLS players have had under him with the most obvious is the January camp that has flowed over to subsequent camps because they supposedly understood the system. One way to remedy this advantage is to use the March camp every year as a shortened version of the January camp for those not available in January. This would allow the coach a chance at the beginning of each calendar year to look at as many players possible before combining the groups of the top players for the rest of the year. These things haven't happened for the last few years so less prepared for how to deal with this camp, but will do the best I can to answer the question. Given what I have said above, this past camp would have been for euro based players and the focus on minutes would have been that core group of 15ish players. Of that group, we were missing Adams, Mckennie and Weah. That creates the problem of Adams not being available, takes away my first alternative to fill that role and reduced depth on the wing where some guys are currently slotted to play but with the potential to move back into the midfield. The options arent ideal, but would have tried moving around our top players and younger guys who are looking to make the leap. While many players might not be in roles they are likely to normally play, it would have put the players i most want to play on the field together. My first option at the 6 would have been to move Musah back and see if he could sit in that deeper space and be more disciplined (his performance vs NI suggests that he might be able to do an adequate job covering those spaces when needed). That opens another midfield spot from our ideal lineup and creates a wave of other changes. I would have moved Reyna and pulisic into midfield or perhaps give Aaronson a shot there as well (I am not convinced he is ready for that role or to be starting but why not give him a shot). That then leaves the right wing spot that could go to Gioacchini, a guy like Sabbi, moving Dest forward as some have suggested (i am not excited about this and question if the hyoe on Cannon has gotten ahead of his ability), moving Sargent out there or seeing if Siebatcheu could handle the role. I would even consider Sargent in midfield as an option, but would have wanted him to get him some time as the sole forward. I prefer versatile players and these young guys are showing they flexible in the roles they play. Some of these guys might struggle and collectively things might breakdown, but the key is get them on the field together.
Says the guy who thought McKennie should have gotten called up for WCQs after a 13-minute cameo for Schalke the last game of the season. But, I agree. Reynolds has to prove more than a half season in MLS and a transfer to Roma.
That's a lot of information to digest. Props to you for laying it all out. On your first point, I noted earlier that Berhalter (via the recent Behind the Crest video someone posted) said that he wanted to see how players would respond to short turn-arounds given that there are a lot of games coming up in a compressed schedule. That he chose Acosta (over Cappis or Musah) isn't particularly surprising. Musah looks good in the CM, but is a winger for club. I don't know enough about it all, but it seems like moving him to a largely stay-at-home 6 wouldn't do justice, and might not work at all. Acosta, even for his faults in the NI game, seems to be a coach's player--or, at least, has taken heed of what Berhalter said to him when he was cut from the January camp a few years ago. The whole idea of a "B team" seems kind of ok, but then one has to wonder--if there's an "A" team (composed of all the best) and a "B" team (split into Camp Cupcake and Camp Crepe), then you really limit the "A" team from getting regular time together. Camp Cupcake happens (and MLS players get a leg up) because MLS is in the off season over the winter, and it's just a quirk of timing. March in Europe isn't some quirk of timing--it's mid-season. I still generally agree with the idea of giving fringe Euro guys a camp. But then are you wasting an international window for the "A" team by dedicating a camp to fringe Euro guys. Is it worth it? Maybe, dunno. After 2006, who are the players with promise that should have gotten minutes? Would those NT minutes have altered their careers or the future of the NT? If we always focus on "promise", can we build a team that can actually win the games when they count? I agree that the US is clearly producing better and better players, but at some point you can't just keep fielding the most promising 20 year olds, because the promising 20 year old of 5 years ago is now in his prime. He may not have blossomed into the player you'd have hoped for when he was 20 but he's better than the next promising 20 year old right now. If we had a March Euro camp, which I like, then what happens to the players in Europe that come out of nowhere after March? What happens for MLS players, similarly? They just get locked out until next January or March? The NT schedule you suggest seems fine at first but seems very rigid and not functional. If we had not called in Acosta and instead moved Musah to the 6, then (in the current state) we could have opened one of the Berhalter 8 spots to someone like Aaronson or de la Torre to start. This might have been a good thing to see. It's also possible that Musah could have been worse than Acosta, and whatever positive you *could* have gotten from Aaronson or de la Torre would have been nullified. In the end, you would like to see Gioacchini or Sabbi or Sargent maybe tried on the RW. How long does that experiment last? One game? If you're the coach, how do the rest of us know what it was you were looking for to determine if the experiment is a success, barring really glaringly obvious success?
This all makes sense. What doesn't really make sense is that the last two A team camps, Berhalter has brought in an older MLS player to start out of position. Lletget is not a #9. Acosta is not a #6. Even if the absence of the first choice A team player means someone has to be substituted, it is strange that you don't fill in, for a friendly, with the next guy at that position. That you bring someone older, with limited ceiling, to play out of position. If Acosta now plays the 6 for Colorado, all season, then he is in the mix. I just don't think we can start him in a competitive game if he has no experience reading play from that position. If he wants to be in Qatar, or involved now, then he needs to convince the Rapids to play him there. Or he can continue to try for a backup for one of the 8's of course, but Berhalter didn't play him there much at all in the last three games. As we head into the first competitive A games, Berhalter will really have to pick a 23. Are we again going to see some strange out of position player? Arriola at LB? Long as a #6? We will see. Previous coaches were crucified for such things.
Berhalter has played with two kinds of strikers. "Run In Behind" and "False 9ish". I think the only one that can do both is Sargent, at the moment. What Dike is doing for me, is vaulting to the head of the RIB rankings. He is displacing Zardes. I see no reason to think Zardes would be better than Dike. The only person who could be in this mix is Hoppe, who has not had a camp yet. The rankings behind Sargent for F9ish, is less exciting. Maybe Ferreira, but he was terrible in Guadalajara, maybe Gioachinni, maybe Altidore. Weah is another wildcard who could be better than all of them at either role. Exciting times. So different than just 6 months ago.
I've decided to reserve most judgment on the Guadalajara boys since that whole thing was a mess. Bad roster mix and bad tactics conspired to make most guys look bad.
Daryl Dike just scored 2 more today for Barnsley, chasing promotion. https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/red-hot-daryl-dike-scores-two-more-goals-in-barnsley-win Certainly making a case for both a place on the WC23 and a potential transfer from Orlando City to a higher level league? I don't know what his transfer value would be these days...
I'm taking the same tact. Did I overvalue how they looked for the full team or undervalue when they were with the OQ? Did they struggle because the others couldn't play nice in OQ or were they carried by their elders with the full team?
IIRC Dike has a $20 million buyout clause in his loan contract. I kind of doubt that Barnsley wants to pay $20 million for him. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone (Barnsley or another) is willing to pay around half of that for him.
EDIT: According to Transfermarkt, in the middle of last month, at a point when he had 3 goals in 7 matches in the Championship, Orlando had already turned down a $10 million offer for Dike from "one of the traditional top-six English clubs." Which would make my last post completely irrelevant and off the mark. https://www.transfermarkt.us/daryl-...saw-his-market-value-updated/view/news/381846
Teams pay big money for Championship players. https://www.transfermarkt.us/championship/toptransfers/wettbewerb/GB2?saison_id=2020
Indeed, I realize that post of mine was much too conservative. I'm re-linking a story I just linked above from Transfermarkt stating that Orlando had already turned down a $10 million transfer from a big-name EPL club last month back at a point when Dike had only scored 3 goals in 7 matches for Barnsley. https://www.transfermarkt.us/daryl-...saw-his-market-value-updated/view/news/381846
If everyone was healthy, I think Richards would be Hoffenheim's #4 CB. Whereas if NYRB didn't turn down West Ham's deal Long would likely be their #3-#4 CB. And he fits better next to Brooks. Richards is showing poor positioning & reactions on d to not project to cover for Brooks' lack of foot-speed. I want to be more solidified at the position, but we aren't YET, so have to think critically. Who the best answer to the current partner for Brooks is not easy. We already know Long is sufficient. People really have to contort to act like he's been a liability. A more reasonable case could be made that he's more reliable than Brooks himself. Unideal options on their face compels us to have to think outside the box too for the best option possible next to Brooks. Why doesn't Miles Robinson enter the equation for more people? He has Long's speed, handles the ball better, and the guy (Funes Mori) Mexico is touting as their potential savior at cf, Robinson shut down in back-to-back games in competition. So he would be one logical answer to the question of who would you start a game tomorrow at Azteca.
Is looking at the 5 games he had played under Berhalter that we didn't win really contorting? He is fine against weaker teams (but still liability on the ball), but has pretty much made every type of mistake that a CB can make against Venezuela, Mexico (×2), Uruguay, and Canada. I would bet on Long being this cycles Gonzalez given Berhalter's bizarre infatuation with him. Hopefully he gets exposed (again) in NL before WCQ or doesn't cost us too many points in qualifying.