I saw this during the game last night, and was wondering if anyone would bring it up... You guys are slipping that it took over 24 hours. And I love how Greg walks around the field holding up that little black book as he cheers the fans. What I wouldn't give to get a hold of that damn thing...
We have plenty of dangerous attacks, but few shots in goal. Against El Salvador away, it took 71 dangerous attacks to generate 2 shots on goal. Against Canada at home, it took 42 for 2. Against Panama, 39 dangerous attacks generated no shots on goal. https://imgur.com/a/oFUN4GU
Yeah, I distinctly remember that play from watching the first time. I was like "Lletget, what the f*ck are you doing?? You've got Bello streaking up the left, another player up the wing, and no Ticos pressuring you goal side!" Of course, it was just one play, but it was a god awful one.
I am always amazed at the reflexive thinking of some players that the safe play is to turn back to their own goal and play negatively. To me, that is more often than not the dangerous play, because you are adding pressure to your own goal. It reminds me of an international game we were playing in one of the summer tournaments, in which our backpassing on the wings in the attacking half became so bad that the opposition on-ball defenders were actually cheating on the side of the backpass, rather than our goalside. And time and again the ball was stolen as we turned BACKWARD, right into that defender. It was maddening.
Small sample but we have 4 points in 3 road games. I take that rate of point production for road qualifiers any day.
Cue the "I bet you're a lot of fun at parties" responses, but I know a lot of coaches have some sort of notecard or notebook they use to write things down related to adjustments. I've actually moved away from a larger notebook and just carry one of those around. I tried to type notes into my phone, but I can't type well on a phone and remember stuff more if I write them down.
I have avoided linking independent pundits with YouTube channels, even though some of them are quite experienced, have qualifications (high-level coaching licenses, etc.), because the usual mode of argument online is not to engage the substance of the points being made and to attack the messenger, or seize in one narrow side point that is easy to refute. But this conversation reflected my frustration, and the reasons for it.
Five minutes in and these guys are just talking about themselves and how brave they are to criticize US Soccer. At what point do they start saying something?
It's an MLS thing. Very well documented. Home field advantage has been falling across Europe for the last couple decades, with the possible exception of the Premier League. MLS continues to MLS by bucking that trend. pic.twitter.com/7KbM3ki5xU— Eliot McKinley (@etmckinley) September 11, 2019 It may also very well be a C'CAF qualifiers thing.
Sorry, that 11 Yanks dude is a complete hack. I'd rather read your posts. I think the height of hilarity is when they did an HOUR long video detailing how they are the future of soccer media in this country. Also, the tactical manager dude knows less about the sport than any Brazilian I've ever met. He'll do a forty minute video on a Best XI and limits his adjectives to "good" "bad" and "sucks." Thanks, dude.
It may. I'd be curious to see where Berhalter/The Crew were versus MLS. MLS, of course, has a higher HFA largely because: More talent parity means HFA becomes a bigger differentiator relative to talent Massive travel differences versus European leagues -- there's a decent correlation between distances and HFA in Euro leagues as well Bigger differences in climate, altitude, fields (size and turf/grass) than most European leagues The latter two apply to even bigger degrees in CONCACAF.
Previous US qualifying Home vs Away points. 2022: 7 vs 4 (so far) 2018: 9 vs 4 (3rd round) and 9 vs 3 (Hex) 2014: 9 vs 4 (3rd round) and 15 vs 7 (Hex) 2010: 9 vs 6 (3rd round) and 13 vs 7 (Hex) The ratio seems to be on track with historical results.
I don't think that there is any objectively provable "problem" with this group. For the most part the group is similar to previous iterations. The issue, if it exists, would boil down to a subjective feeling that this group's talent should bring along a higher level of performance. The obvious counterpoint is that since this group is objectively inexperienced in qualifying and extremely young we should count their matching previous iterations as a proof of a higher level.
That's why I chose the word ratio. So, for instance the 2018 group has less total points but it maintained a similar ratio by being about as much worse on the road as they were at home.
You could be right and I’m going to be labeled as arrogant by some, and that is fine, but I’m in the camp that thinks that this is generally more of an excuse for underperforming. The way we approach away qualifiers is almost comically risk adverse. If you look at Arriola as more of a defensive presence, we basically rolled into Panama with 2 attacking players on the field. I realize that Panama is a difficult environment and brings some unique challenges but come on. TBH, I’ve been a fan of the Nats since the 80’s but I could give a rat’s @SS about historical results or when and where our hero’s of the past struggled. It has no bearing to me on expectations for how our current pool performs, or how we should be approaching qualifying in 2021. All of this perseverating on how difficult road quailes are is counterproductive and is not helping anyone. We just got completely waxed by Panama to the point that we were not even competitive. I’m sorry but our player pool is stronger and we have more resources relative to our Central American opponents. We will not win every game, nor should we expect that but we need to see much, much better from this team. As fans we should expect it and actually have a responsibility to demand it, IMO.
Are you trying to illustrate my point? You’d have to listen to all of it. Or Yank Report. Or 11 Yanks. Or Tactical Manager. Or any of several others. Basically, any independent punditry I have encountered makes the same points.
Look, I'm more than willing to engage your posts, listen to them and respond in good faith. But those dudes don't do that, and they've demonstrated repeatedly that they are more into internet clicks than trying to understand the sport. It's a tremendous waste of time for me to listen to them pump themselves up and then give completely simplistic and uninteresting points. I watched a ton of their stuff early on, but I honestly can't remember any time I thought I learned something. Which makes it useless to me.