I actually think this tournament has been good in a lot of ways but could have been better and more useful with a better constructed roster. Going into the tournament, I felt like if we could find 3 players out of this group who end up with deserved spots in the 23, that would be a success. At this point, I would feel comfortable seeing the following guys on a 23: Turner - I don't watch a ton of MLS and was a bit skeptical but he looks really comfortable back there. I heard others mention he may be a bit weak in the air but he looked excellent last night against a tall Jamaican team. Sands - For me, bringing Sands as a CB is a waste and there are multiple guys better than him at the spot. He's fine, obviously better than some we've tried. But he's a special talent at the 6. He is the closest we have in our pool at being able to do a Tyler Adams impression. They're both pretty similar in that they are good tacklers but elite at intercepting passes and shielding the backline. Zimmerman - A really good blend of a solid athlete, good passer, aerial prowess, and leadership. It's clear the team respects him as well. Robinson - I really liked Robinson two years ago but hadn't been truly impressed last year. He looks like an incredible partner to Brooks in my eyes. His 1 v 1 defending and speed are exactly what we need for a Brooks partner and he brings that to a level Long really never did. I'd like to see him against a better opponent but I don't have much doubt that he will hold up. Hoppe - The revelation of the tournament maybe? I don't know what I expected but it's not this. I believe it was the Scuffed guys that were commenting on the utter disrespect he had for defenders and that's exactly what we need. Other than Pulisic, no one else in our pool really has that. He needs to be in the 30 at minimum for WCQ. Dike - I'm still on the Dike train. He was always going to be a work in progress. Barnsley and Orlando utilize his strengths better. It's a bit of a square peg, round hole situation at present with the USMNT but let's see where he ends up. I'd keep him in the 30 because he's going to be progressing rapidly. This list doesn't include the guys I expect to see if not in the 23, at least in the 30 like Zardes, Vines, Lletget, Acosta. Actually I think Acosta has been great this tournament as well. I'd have to think through my full 23 but I can say with certainty that Sands and Turner are on it and probably at least one of Zimm/Robinson as well. As @rgli13 mentioned (pretty sure I tagged the right poster), hopefully Sands abilities at the 6 is the end to this whole DLP nonsense we've been needlessly enduring and we can have Adams with Sands as his backup/emergency CB. Acosta has me convinced he would be fine as an emergency 6 as well. He's not quite as disciplined as the other two but is an elite tackler by our pool's standards.
Is Lletget an ok player that had an unsustainable hot streak in a USMNT shirt that Berhalter just overrates because he scored goals? It seems that the conventional wisdom has gone from, "player that is great for the NT", to now his fans say, "rises to the level of talent around him", and his detractors are noticing he is a human time delay on offense and non-existent on defense. We've seen certain guys get loooonnnnng leashes with Gregg. I can't imagine how long it will take to replace Lletget if it took so long to get rid of Yueill. Maybe we can just get him off set pieces now? How many horrible set pieces do we need to see?
I think this was really the biggest difference between this game and Canada. I think our offense was actually a little worse at times today in terms of creating real danger, but defensively, we absolutely won most of the 50/50 duels and had a ton of legit tackles. Player execution tends to get downplayed on here because everything is usually viewed in the context of the coaching staff, but it is far more important. And while our offensive execution was lacking except for basically one or two plays, we won this mostly because we won our duels. Jamaica's offensive chances were mostly (or maybe all) because of errors we made in turnovers. Acosta was great as you mentioned, but I think Busio has to get a ton of credit because he got absolutely bullied against Canada and completely turned it around here.
Dike has been the US’ worst player in the tournament and Gioacchini has been largely anonymous. One does not have to do mental gymnastics to discern that there may be other options that should be looked at..
Dike's & Arriola's performances were poor, but they should be caveated by the injuries. May have been forcing themselves out there not near the best for the team & their future opportunities. That may backfire. Gregg should start Dike thru the end of the tourney. Maybe we have a different/better perspective then. Regardless, Dike benefits from none of our cf's playing like #1 options going into qualifying. He, Sargent, Zardes, & maybe even Hoppe would be in the mix. Speaking of Hoppe, before the goal w/ his last touch, Matthew wasn't making a positive contribution to the game overall, as Holden pointed out. He was a TO machine and in bad spots too. Was creating more chances for the opponent than us. But he's got killer instinct. So ideally you'd play him closer to goal, though he may need a partner in a lot of games because he's not a good target. And I have an overall positive feeling about him going fw from this performance + tourney because he's showing initiative, in addition to some skills most of us didn't know he had. So he should make wcq'ing rosters & be in the lottery for #9 starting spot winner. Moore had a decent game and has a solid tourney. Problem is that's at our deepest position & we have 5-10 guys who could put in this performance or better. He took the chance so he's higher on the depth chart than most, but would have had to be lights out to make 1 or 2. He hasn't been. So it just puts him in the conversation for a wcq'ing roster spot. Roldan is 3 for 3 in positive contributions against Jamaica if people remember correctly. He's more comfortable against them. And he played well off the bench at the end of last GC (1 of those games being v. Jamaica). I don't think it means anything about him being part of the team going fw, but I'm happy for him, and that he's gotten off the schneid as far as goal productions. Never thought that was really his problem w/ the NT and that part was mostly terrible luck that's progressing to the mean now. Vines hasn't been spectacular by any means, but he's been steady, and answered some questions on d. That's useful info and I think puts him on wcq'ing rosters as the 2 or 3 lb. Sands had his hiccups out there. His question was speed and that was going to be his biggest test in that department. He got a passing grade. The decisions on the ball needed to speed up a smidgen. It got better after the initial shock. He should be on the wcq'ing roster as the #2 D-mid & utility guy.
i 100% hold berhalters past against him, which people have problems with. where i tend to disagree with you is predicting things not based on specific things hes done. i dont think youre completely out of line here in that many would agree with you based on long- but until robinson and sands are starting over brooks, richards or mckenzie then youre just looking for problems. and as an "irrational berhalter hater" myself, ill just suggest you slow your roll. theres a very good chance he will prove you right a lot of the time. im not sure cb is where its gonna happen, though.
I've been hard on Acosta but he has been good at this level. He could play a role in WCQ amongst lower level competition. With that being said the fact that Lleget hasn't shown anything really shows a lot.
I actually think he's been so invisible this tourney, it's gone even further, to "well, he is fine, completes passes, he's not on this team to provide offense, hardly the worst, Busio didn't do any better", like that's now the standard for an A team starter. He's not going anywhere, because he has that ability to have zero responsibilities offensively or defensively, so never really looks glaringly poor. Yeuill just had two matches worse than Lletget will ever have (Honduras/Switz) and started the first game. So you're right on that. Just need Acosta or Busio (or literally anyone else) to take set pieces, and at least mitigate those lost opportunities.
Someone with the opinion that Berhalter “favors his guys (or MLS)” will have a hard time justifying why Shaq Moore is still starting this tournament over Reggie Cannon.
disappeared together once. in their first starts. and this really depends on which vet players youre talking about. not having looked at the stats ill still say i bet williamsons arent more than marginally worse than lletget, if that. again- first cap vs full time starter. the stats are a few pages back that busio outperformed lletget last night.
No, Lletget is an okay player who is goal productive for the USMNT because he gets himself into spaces that the overall offensive movement of the "system" creates chances in. Lletget is a decent finisher who knows where to go -- the cut back is open a TON for us -- and he's solid otherwise and is where he's supposed to be in terms of recycling, etc. He doesn't make a lot of mistakes so he doesn't create concern. There's value in both those things -- being where he's supposed to be and not making mistakes. His finishing is also above a lot of the team, so when he gets there, it often goes in -- also valuable. But he absolutely can and perhaps probably will be passed up. What the detractors don't seem to get at all is that there's few coaches out there who will replace a guy like that with someone who's not materially better but has larger highs and lows. At least not in central midfield. I'm sure Berhalter would like more from Lletget. But there's immense value in a floor who also does exactly what he's supposed to, because that makes life easier for players who are actual difference makers. It's like in basketball, I see the same thing -- fans want five dribble drive guys on the floor, not realizing the team is better with one or two and then a bunch of other guys who defend and hit threes and move without the ball. Busio, Williamson, whatever, these guys are not performing in total above Lletget's level -- there are individual plays that are clearly better -- but they come with risk and variance no coach likes. Over time, someone will provide the upside without losing the floor of Lletget's play, and that's when he will lose the job. It will need to be both natural talent and understanding of where to be, because the latter is part of Lletget's advantage.
Because one player selection in one tournament proves a point? Why do people think one example is some kind of solid evidence, when the entire discussion is about trends? I'm happy Gregg has stuck with Moore, and seems to now have Hoppe as a starter. That shows flexibility. But that's not indicative of much, outside of one or two decisions. Moore only got that spot because Cannon was injured, not because he stood out in training or something.
Indeed. We've seen Arriola play better than that against competition better than that. I'm not worried about him..........................
ill agree that his impact has been extremely underwhelming, but like most of bs you just ignore the disconnect between the attack and the rest of the team and service he does and doesnt receive. even still, hes the leading scorer. the other two forwards on the roster are tied with our fullbacks. this tourney with this roster does not breed the best evaluations of any of our attackers other than finding out hoppe can do WAY more than hes ever been able to show with schalke.
What's good for Hoppe is he's on the selling block at Schalke, and I'm sure there are a lot of scouting eyes on him in this event. What's amazing about Hoppe is that he had no caps for the US on any level until he appeared in the starting lineup in the Gold Cup. No youth appearances/caps of any type. He really wasn't lighting the world on fire at Schalke II, and on the youth boards folks were wondering what his future was. Flash forward to a year later..............................
Or is he a pretty good player who is having a poor tournament? Considering he's still played more good games in the shirt than poor, and I'd say that Occam agrees with me. That said, he shouldn't be taking set pieces.
cannon had one sub appearance in the group stage due to injury and shaq is playing at a level that overrides berhalters comfort with him- which isnt remotely comparable to llletget, or even yueill until- thank god- now, after a year and a half of his adequate-at-best level? and neither of them have anything to do with mls (youre confusing me with guys whos issues are mls based)? see? that wasnt hard at all. i mean, that hot freaking mess of a sentence i just typed is hard on all of us but nah- the justification is easy-peasy.
Anecdotally, since that is what we are doing, fringe euros lack of success shows how many underrate the top MLSers vs the euros. This doesn't have to be a euro vs MLS conversation. CCV has a good, shot of jumping up the club ladder, but he hasn't yet. (don't count your chickens before they are hatched, unless you want to count the mls chickens too.) Personally, I don't like Miazga as much as some other options based, not on Berhalter, but on what I have seen in the games he has played. I do not have a current opinion on CCV. I wasn't particularly impressed with him in the past (USMNT games), but a) he didn't have a very large sample size b) he may have improved greatly in the time I haven't watched him. since we are on the subject of defenders, I will put my .02 in. Vines is very underrated by many on these boards. He isn't flashy and doesn't have Dest-like attributes but he is a very solid defender (one of our best imo), makes very smart runs out of the back and consistently puts in quite a few good crosses. He isn't our number one LB (maybe not even #3 depending) but he is solid and gives us great depth in the back. In the middle, Sands has cemented himself in the team (imo) for his versatility, solid defending and passing out of the back. Many are looking at a partner for Brooks, I see Sands as a replacement for Brooks when Brooks is out, whether that be due to injury or 3-game rotation. Sands could also be seen as a replacement for Ream as a cb. I think Robinson has been a revelation, but the competition for "partner to Brooks" is pretty heavy. I won't even try to name them all, but suffice to say they come from both sides of the pond and all have their own special strengths. Biggest loser? Possibly Ream. I think you could do worse than a back three of either Robinson-----Brooks--------Sands or pick three Robinson, Brooks, Zimmerman, Miazga, Sands, Richards, etc
He has been our best player against our 2 best opponents so far. It hasn't even really been all that close.
Robinson was on my CB depth chart before this tournament. He's climbing up. He is prone to lapses, unfortunately, but he has the best toolkit in the pool to partner with Brooks with Long out. In my estimation, in the first window we could really go with either Richards, McKenzie, or Miles, depending on health, form and on comfort level with Brooks in training. (IIRC McKenzie has only played the three games with Brooks in the NL window, and the other two haven't partnered with him at all). Guys like Miazga or (healthy) Zimmerman are a step behind, and more likely to play in Brooks's absence.
Well put. . my response was based on my interpretation through a best-guess GGG lens - he gets fixated on certain players and Roldan seems to be one, in the same class as Too Lletget to Quit and Acosta. These player fixations, if longer than 6 months, appear permanent. We are clearly imho aways away from the concrete hardening on the WC23 squad beyond Pulisic, Reyna, McKennie, Dest, Adams, Brooks, Aaronson, Musah.