Rank the USMNT center backs

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by dspence2311, Jul 26, 2021.

  1. tomásbernal

    tomásbernal Member+

    Sep 4, 2007
    Club:
    Portland Timbers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You're trying to make it sound like people are arguing that he's not a high-quality player, which is a serious twist on what anyone has said. He's got lots of talent and skills, but lacks in the skills that are needed to play in the high line Berhalter asks of the team (or, at least, he hasn't adapted his game to make up for his deficiencies here).

    With regards to how the team will play at the WC, I have a few questions for you: Did you watch the last two friendlies against Uruguay (ranked 13th by FIFA) and Morocco (ranked 22nd)? Did we play a high line against them?
     
    theboogeyman, ifsteve and Pegasus repped this.
  2. LouisianaViking07/09

    Aug 15, 2009
    What are the odds Palmer-Brown is going to Qatar?
     
  3. ifsteve

    ifsteve Member+

    Manchester United
    United States
    Jul 7, 2013
    MS and ID
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Low
     
    tomásbernal and RossD repped this.
  4. ifsteve

    ifsteve Member+

    Manchester United
    United States
    Jul 7, 2013
    MS and ID
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So if we listened to the "experts" on BS then here's what we would be doing.
    1. Scrap the high line because Brooks is one of our best CBs and perhaps best passing CB but he doesn't play a high line well.
    2. Scrap the press and adjust tactics so we can have a big true #9 on the field since scoring goals is their most important attribute.

    So in other words we should fundamentally change the entire way the team has been built and trained toward the last 2 years so we can get two must have guys on the field. Genius I say pure genius.....lol
     
    russ, tomásbernal, theboogeyman and 4 others repped this.
  5. RossD

    RossD Member+

    Aug 17, 2013
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    I mean, when you put it that way, it makes complete sense. :ROFLMAO:
     
    russ and tomásbernal repped this.
  6. RossD

    RossD Member+

    Aug 17, 2013
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    There are lots of good players who won't make the final roster. We've never been in this position before. Guys will be left off.
    Berhalter wants to play a certain way and Brooks has not shown the ability to play that way while other guys have. It's that simple. This does not mean he's a bad player, does't have quality, etc.
     
    tomásbernal and theboogeyman repped this.
  7. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    I think it is mostly too late for major modifications to how the team is going to play. That said, it is not at all a sure thing that the system we are going with is the best system for this team or that all the individual player calls are correct across the board. I also don't think there is any sort of universal Big Soccer agreement about what should or should not change. Personally, I'm willing to say we are where we are and we can wait until after Qatar to see if many of these aspects of the way the team will play is or is not successful. I have my disagreements with aspects of how this team is setup, but coaches get to make these calls and then we judge them on the results in the end. While it may be unreasonable to believe we can or should implement an entirely new system of play at this late date, it is not unreasonable to believe there are multiple ways this team could have been constructed and not everyone will agree that the way Berhalter has gone is the best way, even among other professional coaches and players so its not just fans against professionals. everyone approaches a lot of these things differently. And that includes both tactical issues and player selections. Just assuming all Berhalter's decisions are correct before we've even seen the end result seems a bit presumptuous to me, as much as those who presume he will fail.

    We go three and out and we see blunders by guys many are calling to be set aside and a lot of the defenses of Berhalter will look a bit silly. We make a deep run and those thinking he has bungled everything will look foolish. But we don't know any of that yet so I think fans still have every right to disagree on how the team is setup and we still don't know how it will all ultimately shake out.
     
    tomásbernal repped this.
  8. RossD

    RossD Member+

    Aug 17, 2013
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Completely agree with you. But I think what pisses a lot of guys off on here is the juvenile bomb-throwing Berhalter hate crap. I'm all for disagreeing with what he does but have a coherent reason for doing something else. It's easy to Monday morning quarteback and as Tyson said, "We all have a plan till we are punched in the face." Berhalter is the one who has to deal with the counter-punches, not the fans looking from the outside. I think many do not give him, or any coach that deffernce. Real world is not FIFA.
    I think if any players make big mistakes it's going to be the locked in guys we all agree on. I do not see Roldan, Lletget, etc being put in any positions where then can have a significant impact on the game. Young guys have already supplanted them and those guys are getting more games over the next few months to help them solidify those spots. If anything, I see a teen or young twenty something we all love making a bonheaded play that will cost us.
     
    tomásbernal and theboogeyman repped this.
  9. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    Well, both sides of this particular argument do get unreasonably pissed regularly, that's the internet. But I think Monday morning quarterbacking get a bad rap. This is a results business and we will all get to see how it plays out and the looking back at how did results actually shake out should be considered highly important. Not in some gotcha sort of way, but in a very real you got to be in charge and make decisions and here's where those decisions got us sort of way. We should expect and demand some Monday morning quarterbacking of this team after Qatar.
     
  10. Pegasus

    Pegasus Member+

    Apr 20, 1999
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think an interesting exercise is to postulate what other available coaching hires at the time would have done differently based on their coaching records. I thought at the time Tata wasn't as good a choice mostly because he never stayed anywhere more than two years. I was wrong about that but I wouldn't go back and make him the coach. I just think he would have used a lot more veteran players like Lletget and we would be howling. I don't know enough about other real possibilities at the time but I just never thought this cycle was ever going to be great it's the next one I'm thinking could be the breakthrough. So getting as much experience for players who will be around next cycle is my biggest thing.
     
    tomásbernal repped this.
  11. LouisianaViking07/09

    Aug 15, 2009
    Care to elaborate?
     
  12. dspence2311

    dspence2311 Member+

    Oct 14, 2007
    Neither of those is a necessary predicate for bringing Brooks, unless you assume we have to play the same way against every opponent.
     
  13. ifsteve

    ifsteve Member+

    Manchester United
    United States
    Jul 7, 2013
    MS and ID
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Of course we should and will change the tactics in a particular match to align with the opponent. But I see those as tactical adjustments not wholesale fundamental changes to the approach.
     
    tomásbernal and theboogeyman repped this.
  14. ifsteve

    ifsteve Member+

    Manchester United
    United States
    Jul 7, 2013
    MS and ID
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think we take 4 CBs.

    Zimmerman, Richards, and Long are locks to me (at this point). So that leaves one spot between Brooks, CCV, and EPB. I have EPB last in that group. He was atrocious against Uruguay. Others will see it differently but you asked and I answered.....lol.
     
  15. LouisianaViking07/09

    Aug 15, 2009
    With the increase to 26, I'd figure we take 5 and which EPB has a straight shot over Carter-Vickers. I appreciate your reply.
     
    ifsteve repped this.
  16. rgli13

    rgli13 Member+

    Mar 23, 2005
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    im not so sure you do, though.

    im glad youre so happy with this fifth independant reason being the one why brooks isnt in the team, but that doesnt excuse the previous four.

    im not sure conspiracy theory is the correct term, though- that gets to motive and execution which, imo, doesnt matter. but its a fact that gregg has made this the mess it is. he could have said anything he wanted (ie "hes just a little behind) and that would be fine. hes the manager- everyone gets that.

    and its not like anyones saying "he lied, that makes him a bad person"- but every time he comes up with some new reason it just gets stirred up again. like i said- he could have given any reason at all and if he had managed to say it twice in a row it would have been over.

    gregg needs to shut the hell up about it, because hes the one making- and keeping- it a thing. and brooks is dragged through the freaking mud every time it happens.

    we are all gonna see exactly how high our line is in the world cup, and how our cbs do. brooks doesnt have anything to do with that. brooks has played his entire career against wc calibur players week and and week out and has been a very solid-very good player. so- hes not a fit? ok.

    but taking at least two mls lifers ahead of him and playing a very high line- thats on gregg. this board loves to talk about bale, or sterling breaking through and what a disaster brooks would be. well, im sure zim is going to have no problems whatsoever. he shows us week in, week out against fcd and vancouver.
     
  17. gogorath

    gogorath Member+

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    If someone wanted to make a thread or an argument that we should be fundamentally playing a different way, and lay it out, I think people would actually engage.

    That's a completely different story than comments like "If we can't find a place for Player X then clearly we've got the wrong coach" or "So and so should be on the roster but the coach is too inflexible."

    These are the buzzfeed headlines of comments. Yes, it sounds totally right that a really good coach finds a way to get a talented player on the field. But there's a lot of things that sound right until you actually do them.

    So if you want to say Brooks can play a high line, like HHF does, great. I don't agree, but that's an argument.

    Or if you want to say we should abandon a high line or a press altogether, present your argument. Snide commentary like often presented here is pointless and it deserves snide commentary back.

    Present an argument about an alternate gameplan that Brooks succeeds in and why that team as a whole is better than what we are bringing and people will engage on an equally honest level.

    The amount of criticism on here that implies Berhalter does things for personal animosity, or for character flaws (he's inflexible for no reason!) is just ridiculous.
     
    tomásbernal, theboogeyman and ifsteve repped this.
  18. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    I think we have seen a lot of this in some discussions, maybe not enough in the defense. I know I and many others have thrown out several ways to alter the setup to stop relying on having a traditional 9 for example. And yes, lots of people have engaged with that so you are correct that people are interested and willing to talk about things more tactical. And honestly, I see that as a much bigger issue on this team than the defense, which has mostly been pretty good, largely due to our midfield defense blanketing the middle of the field. But I do think we overcommit too much and that none of our center backs will fare well if they get isolated in space.

    I think there is a lot of over-reaction to the idea of playing Brooks while holding a high line and I think the assumption we have a lot of others who are great at it is inaccurate. Wolfsburg do not play a low block and sit back. They are not as aggressive as the US has become but the difference is nowhere near as black and white as often described. And they do press at times. Brooks actually has decent straight-line speed so recovering over distance isn't really a weakness of his. And when he gets the ball pushed forward, he is an excellent passer and could also help with some of our issues creating chances.

    No, you don't want Brooks playing too much in open space, but I think these worries are overblown because you don't want any defensive guy to be isolated in space 1 v 1. That's a recipe for disaster against any top team with decent attackers. Teams often create game plans based on trying to get their attackers into 1 v 1 situations is space because that equates to a giant advantage for the attack. Zimmerman or Richards aren't going to fare too well if they have to step to Gareth Bale in the open field either and those are the most likely starters for the center back spots.

    It's also part of why Adams has to sit deep and why it was extremely important to dispense with the playmaking 6 early on. If we continually bomb forward someone needs to help the center backs whether Brooks is one of them or not. I honestly worry about how often we overplay the ball and leave space for opponents to cross into and then attack open space in general. We saw Uruguay do this several times and were lucky to get out unscathed. It's a real gamble regardless of who we play in that spot, not just Brooks. I think we really need to keep our weak side fullback deeper or any of our center backs will struggle if we expect them to play with wingers in space. We push a lot of guys forward regularly and still struggle to create chances. So, I'm not sure just keeping everything based around pushing up more numbers and leaving the center backs to compensate defensively is all that effective. Hard not to mention here that this team lacks passers, deferring to dribbling more often than we should and Brooks is excellent in this area.

    I guess I see some of the Brooks arguments as having a grain of truth, he's a big guy and not great turning with a quick attacker. But it's not like we don't need to protect any of our center backs from that sort of situation. No team wants their center back isolated in space. Heck Miles Robinson got smoked in open space in the second Canada game and that seemed to be a nonissue for many.

    So, I guess I think we should be much more careful overall in letting our center backs get isolated, but I also think he is better than some of our other options as is, especially since we lack quality depth at center back. I'm good with Zimmerman, Richards is good and improving. Robinson was mostly good before injury if a step behind Richards, although I though less consistent than many seemed to think. But after those, I don't think we have much quality at all. I'd like to at least have Brooks around as a Zimmerman backup because if he's out, who comes in other than Brooks? CCV who is even slower and has less athleticism? Long who is horrible on the ball and who has video clip after video clip of him overcommitting and getting beaten? McKenzie who has been almost comically error-prone?

    I don't know why Berhalter prefers just about anyone to John Brooks, but I don't think that is a decision a great number of other coaches would make looking at the US player pool. We have seen more than a small number of pundits, including some high-level ex-pros, have some continuing questions about it as well so I think this idea it is some immutable fact that we have 4, 5 or even more center backs who can play more effectively, even in a high line, is far less than a clear assumption.
     
    Yowza, russ and rgli13 repped this.
  19. tomásbernal

    tomásbernal Member+

    Sep 4, 2007
    Club:
    Portland Timbers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't think we will take 5 CBs, unless the 5th is a versatile player. With that, I think it's more likely that Sands gets in if he continues to start at CB for Rangers. He's capable of being a backup 6 as well (which we need).
     
    xbhaskarx repped this.
  20. TurdFerguson

    TurdFerguson Member

    United States
    Jan 11, 2013
    Aaron Long with a less than stellar performance along with all of RBNY defense vs Orlando. Yikes
     
  21. xbhaskarx

    xbhaskarx Member+

    San Jose Earthquakes
    United States
    Feb 13, 2010
    NorCal
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Long somehow got his USMNT job back before he had even fully recovered from a catastrophic long term injury...

    Too bad we can't trust other defenders like say EPB even though he was decent against the likes of PSG because he slipped once against Uruguay
     
    SCSAutism, TurdFerguson and gjackson2207 repped this.
  22. Yowza

    Yowza Member+

    DC United
    United States
    Oct 23, 2019
    Arlington
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't usually read long posts but I read this one and I'm glad I did. Well said.
    If the worry is Brooks will get beat over the top or one v one, I have that worry for most of our guys, including Zimmerman. If the worry is he doesn't know how/when to step to help the press, I don't see that at all, in fact he's going to better at that than others, imo.
    Despite the high line ultimatum, I think if Brooks is playing and playing well and he still doesn't get picked, considering our less than stellar options, then we'll know it was something else anyway, which is what I suspect.
     
  23. gogorath

    gogorath Member+

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019

    Thanks for the response.

    I'd say for me the issue with Brooks is not just that he's bad in space. He is.

    But he's also not great in any kind of pressure defense because he tends to be indecisive at times. Pressure defenses work in large part because the back gambles and applies pressure as the ball is getting in. It's a risk, but it's fundamentally less risky than backpedalling in a lot of situations. Without assistance coming, heading on your back foot against an attacker is often more dangerous. Brooks has a tendency to get rooted, to not move. That's what Zimmerman is really good at -- he attacks the ball.

    That was part of our problem against Uruguay -- our back line was receding defensively and not able to hold compact and close. There are times when Brooks does this well, but it's very hit or miss with the US. I simply don't trust him very much at this point. I don't think it helps that he clearly didn't put forth strong effort in the September window on the plays he got beat on, either.

    On the system, I think that's a really interesting question. Or rather, two questions.

    The first is whether you regularly apply a pressure defense or sit back. I really don't think there's a lot of question here, despite the fact that a few players aren't really suited for it.

    We played a very passive, bend but don't break defense for most of 2019, and it was not good despite some pretty decent personnel. Most of our players are young, active, aggressive -- while it may not fit Brooks, it clearly fits Adams, McKennie, Aaronson, Weah, Musah, etc.

    And I think it more than fits them -- I think most of those guys are materially better players in a pressure defense. I think they are better defenders, and I think that aggression and confidence brims over into their offensive play. Our defense got us on our back heels mentally, and that's a bad look for us.

    Is pressure D risky? To a certain extent. Certainly, errors are amplified. But it also kills a LOT of counters, kills a LOT of opponent possession and chances. Individual chances look worse, but the number of chances go down. There's a reason nearly every good team out there plays a pressure D of some kind at some point.

    The question is whether the US is good enough to apply it against other teams. We'll find out, but I think we're a better pressing team in terms of tools and skills than we are in other things.

    The other big question is what is your line of confrontation. We don't always play a high line, and I've been in favor of dialing it back at times. Mixing it up is a good option, but a lower high line lowers counter risk, and it also creates space in front of you to use your offensive speed. Of course, there's a trade-off -- you do tend to allow the opponent more time closer to goal. But an immediate counter-press that drops to a lower line is great if you can pull it off -- it's just hard. If you can't ... you kind of have to lose the counterpress to get a lower line, and that's a big loss.

    I expect us to mix up our defenses a decent amount for a national team with little time to prep. We won't pressure 100%, nor play a high line 100%. But despite the improved level of competition, I really can't see the right move for this team being to move away from pressing a majority of the time, and definitely not from counterpressing (which is really the best defense against counters).

    So at some level, everyone has got to be able to play in an aggressive defense a big chunk of the game. I just can't imagine going to a compact, passive, low block (and we know a passive mid block is a disaster) for most times with this team. England may pick apart a press, but I have zero confidence they won't also pick apart our low block. This team isn't made to defend small spaces for 90 minutes.

    You think Brooks can. I think he can ... but I'm also very aware that he's prone not just getting beat or a mistake here or there -- he has bad runs of play for whole games or periods. And it's happened in both of the last two qualifying cycles.

    If Brooks is there, I'm not going to be mad. Our CB options are not super strong right now. But if he's not there, I think it is totally understandable even before getting into other things. The random back and forth of selected lowlights is not compelling to me because we're talking risk mitigation to my mind.
     
  24. IndividualEleven

    Mar 16, 2006
    Brooks? There's clearly a non-footballing element in his exclusion. It's been hinted at by people, including ex-National Teamers, around the program.

    And there's nothing unique about this. Harkes got excluded. Feilhaber got excluded. Danny Williams got excluded.

    Brooks is not that lacking in athleticism when compared to other US CBs. There's no sporting reason he would be excluded from a WC corps of 4 cb's.

    GGG wasn't claiming 'high line' when he had first dropped Brooks.
     
  25. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    I think these two bits are closely related although I come out of them in a different place. I absolutely agree with the second bit at the end. Everyone has bad plays, just posting and only focusing on a handful of bad plays is silliness. Almost any pro has both a series of clips that can make them look all world and a series of clips that can make then look awful. I admit to seeing a reason behind some of the clips showing others falling over themselves mostly because it gets so old having the same 2-3 clips of Brooks making a mistake trotted out over and over as if it is proof that he's terrible and as if the rest of our back don't have clips of themselves out there making mistakes too. Sometimes balance is needed.

    But, I think this directly relates to the paragraph above in that of course Brooks has had bad games or even a series of games where he is better and worse, that's the nature of the game and why the second paragraph makes sense to me. All players have bad games; all players have a couple in a row from time to time. Pulisic has had entire windows this cycle where he's been less than effective and downright poor for stretches and he's the star of this team. This is not unique to Brooks, even though consistency is absolutely something to strive for and something to be credited. Brooks may have off games, but he was also one of our best players at the Copa, was very good in Nations League more recently with this same squad and has been a steady presence in a high level defense in a top league for several years, showing every bit as much consistency as our other options. On a related side-note, I actually think Zimmerman deserves credit for his consistency. I seem to recall many not rating him particularly highly when he first came in but he has earned a lot of respect with his consistently solid play.

    But I don't see any other center back that has been that consistent and that even includes Richards who I like a lot. It's not that Brooks is this amazing must have guy in absolute terms, although for a very young team weak at center back, casting aside your longest serving player in the position who is still near his peak playing age and who has come up big for you in multiple big tournaments before and brings a ton more experience than any other option is certainly an odd decision. Compared to his competition at center back for the US, he's awfully solid and no less consistent than most. And we have to evaluate him against the competition, not on some absolute scale. I can see a very reasonable argument that we don't need two less mobile guys at once so you don't want to play Zimmerman and Brooks together and Zimmerman has earned his spot. But, when you start looking beyond Zimmerman for his backup, I struggle to see anyone in the pool who deserves that role more than Brooks. And if Zimmerman gets injured and you have to play someone in his spot, I'd be far more comfortable in Qatar bringing on John Brooks than any other option. And I don't really even think it is close.
     

Share This Page