Nope. I actually had Walker in my top 2 going into the tourney, and still have him in my top 4 now. When I talk about found out, I'm not talking about "he sucked" i'm talking about, "excellent in concacaf qualifying does not equal excellent in the worlds game. He went from Excellent to adequate in my view and at times less than adequate. You can couch me as an ideologue, but if you read for detail, you'd see that I still had him in my auto-select grouping for NL. If I hate the guy, why am I taking him to NL? Answer? I don't hate the guy. I just view his limitations as a bigger problem against stiffer competition than against concacrap. We drew a cake group and he just ranged from okay to sub par. What would've happened if we'd gotten a group of death level draw like Canada did? Or those other murderouns group like E-H? We got lucky with a lot of our team because we managed to avoid top 10 sides in the world in 3 of our 4 matches. If we were playing tougher competition I think it would have been much much uglier. If you want to misrepresent my take, that's your business, straw man, that's your business. But it's false and bs all the same. Btw, "found out" was a bad choice of words, poor diction, and I agree that that was the wrong way to couch it, but I do think it gets to the key point which is his limitations became more pronounced as the level of competition became more difficult and I think it would have been much worse if we'd played against a legit tough draw, we didn't, and we got away with it, but of course, this take is speculative, what we got was okay, what we might have gotten in a different context could have been (and likely would have been) worse in my view, but there's no way for me to demonstrably prove it.
Obviously our opinions mean absolutely nothing. I just meant I feel like there’s been a downgrading of Busio based off one not good season. There was a point in qualifying that he was probably the 4th center mid. And then things seemed to fall apart for Venezia and his play fell at that point too. But he could for sure bounce back in the right situation.
Ah, you're right, I stand corrected. Odd that we'd already announce our October friendlies but not our September friendlies. I do hope that we aren't going to simply forgo that date. With a new coach there will be a lot of work to do, though not all necessarily with the same roster. Clearly, with Germany and Ghana as the opponents, the October window is for the A team. September could be largely MLS and the European second-tier players (meaning the guys who aren't in our core roster yet) looking to make their cases for the new manager.
We definitely won't forgo the date. I think probably just a bit trickier to lock down opponents for September. I'm assuming both September and October will be full A team with up and coming guys sprinkled in. We have Copa America qualifying in November so those two windows will be the only time the new coach has with the roster in advance.
I did not know we need to qualify for the Copa America. I thought it was like the WC and the hosts do not need to qualify. But, if I am wrong in that, I am quite sure we could qualify with our 'B' or 'C' team with fair ease. We have, or at least should have, no problem qualifying against CONCACRAP teams. Now, if we have to play South American teams to get in, that "could" be an issue. Of course if we have to travel then that is a very different can of worms. We are not exactly the best traveling team in this hemisphere.
We’re going to have to play a home and home with an El Salvador, Panama, Honduras, Jamaica type team. And yes we should qualify, but I certainly wouldn’t take it lightly or send a B/C team.
I did not say we "should" send a B/C team. I just said we could. If any of our home matches are first and we win in a tight match then we should send a mixed A/B team to the away match. For the away matches that are first if we win or tie then a C/D team is all that is needed at home. However if we lose away then the home match should have as close to an A team as possible. I would like to see the USSF show some basic intelligence (admittedly something that appears unlikely) and take into account that all those teams you mention have "leg breaking" as their primary tactic, particularly at home, and therefore expose our best/most important players to unnecessary danger. I am not saying that they should wrap players in bubble wrap, although that could be VERY funny, but rather the USSF should take into account the top players exposure to danger. And I REALLY hope they never play any player, even MLS players, with any slight injuries that could be exaggerated/re-injured before recovery is complete. We have enough depth that exposing any player to the dregs of the soccer world like the four teams you mentioned is rather foolish.
Due to the timing of the Gold Cup and European seasons the only guys who should be easily ruled out are: 1. Moving teams 2. Played heavy minutes + internationally experience 3. Not established + new manager 4. Early competitive start date + not firmly established 5. Injury concerns Missing the first week of preseason is not a good enough reason in and of itself. Missing the first week and then having to rest for two weeks would be.
It’ll be the same window and the away match will be first. And we’ll send the best available team of healthy players that we have.
I think large parts of the analytical community have gone back and forth here. In the beginning, it was an all out assault on chemistry, and intangibles, etc., because frankly it was totally overused. Perhaps still is. It's like the old thing that shitty hitting catchers were always assumed to be good fielders ... but then we started to measure those things, and suddenly, no, many are not. But after a while, most of the folks on the cutting edge have circled back. Things like determination, work ethic, etc. are very hard to measure, but they have a HUGE effect on performance. To the level that a lot of teams invest in sports psychologists and do psych evals. The issue here is accuracy, not impact. Analytics folks could be as blind to anything that they struggled to measure as people who hate analytics can fall back on it. The key is to acknowledge the limitations of any approach. Right. We need to be comfortable with ambiguity and simultaneously be able to make choices knowing that there is ambiguity. I think people think I wholly support a certain side, but a good portion of the side is simply: Hey, acknowledge that this possible reason exists. I think there is a big difference between acknowledging all viewpoints and angles and then taking a POV and simply being dismissive of anything but a certain POV. No doubt. I do think on field chemistry is easier to predict. Certain style play together better. But that culture building chemistry is hard to predict. I do think it is important to look at what it seems they were trying to build. Here's what I get out of much of what has been said and done over the last few years by players and coaches: They use the word culture, not chemistry. In part, because they know they are going to have a revolving door of players. So they are trying to build certain elements and standards of behavior that are expected of everyone when they come in. It's peer pressure. And if you listen, what are they? Hardworking, aggressive, competitive, but also a team. They help each other out, but still compete. They work their asses off; this is not a vacation. But it's fun. They are trying to avoid the situations they've seen in other times and places. A new person comes in and notices a top player really isn't putting forth full effort in practice, so they don't, either. Two players are feuding so they don't pass to each other. Another top player still keeps starting without working, so why should I try? Or it's a hypercompetitive camp where people backstab and try to sink each other to win a spot. That's what they are trying to build. And you don't want to risk upsetting that dynamic because any time a young kid comes in new ... they understand that they are a team with a common goal that plays with aggression. They understand they have to work. They understand they have to earn a spot. These are really important things to have, especially when you don't have a lot of chances to influence it. I always think of the Warriors. The core to so much of that winning is Kerr, Steph, and Draymond. Kerr is intelligent, empathetic but laid back. They play music at practice. They are accommodating. He takes input into gameplans. And what keeps that from becoming a mess of ill discipline and idiocy is Steph and Dray. Because Steph is the superstar who outworks everyone. He sets the tone. If you are new to the Warriors, you take your cue from him. And you can't slack, but the star doesn.t And Dray ... Dray is the dude who gets on your ass when you screw up. Which is needed because Steph is quiet and Steve Kerr isn't that dude. Part of the result of this has been a series of role players who seem to have career years with the Warriors. And part of the issue with them this year is that Dray hitting Poole kind of broke that dynamic. Does that mean if we brought John Brooks in instead of Cristian Roldan, everything would fall apart. Probably not, of course. But there's always cracks. You try to minimize them. The fact that this all seems so basic makes me think that things were MUCH worse at the end last cycle.
There is going to be a ton of pressure on that home/away match-up. It would be so humiliating to host a tournament that you are not playing in. For the life of me it makes no sense why they agreed to it... from both sides. The US could come out of this w/ a huge black eye and the Tournament would lose a lot of viewership if the US did not make it. I, for one, would not watch a single game if we didn't make it. All of the teams listed above could pose a problem. They are not gimmes at all.
If you are in the U.S., you need to get Premiere on Sling or get Fanatiz to watch some Brazilian league matches. It is a highly technically skilled league, which is why Euro scouts are all over it, and Johnny has been excellent. It is no small feat to make league top 11 in that league, like Johnny did.
Johnny has been “playing fairly well” in Brazil? As in current Brasileirao top 11 team of the week (top player in the league at his position)? https://www.aiscore.com/tournament-brazilian-serie-a/r8lk2dil5t0736d Maybe you should watch some Brasileirao matches. Joao Lucas Souza Cardoso (“Johnny “)
So 2 games for our A squad and 7 for Arriola, Long, Roldan, Morris, and the usual MLSers (and few young ones). As usual. And if Anthony Hudson doesn't like it, he can hit the road.
I left Busio off my initial post. I'd assume this for NL, 4231: Turner; Dest, Zimmerman, M. Robinson, A. Robinson; Musah, McKennie; Weah, Reyna, Pulisic; Balogun. Next man: Johnson; Scally, Richards; Cardoso, LDLT; Aaronson, Sonora, Zendejas; Pepi. Maybe Booth over Sonora. Trusty & Callender in emergencies only. For CG if only using non-NL guys, 4231: Slonina; Yedlin, McKenzie, Brooks, Tolkin; Acosta, A. Morris; Arriola, Mihailovic, J. Morris; Ferreira. Next men: Celentano; Moore, Gomez, Miazga; Tessman, Pomykal; Cowell, Roldan, Ledezma; Vazquez. But I think a significant number of NL guys play GC, especially guys who are subs in NL (Johnson, Scally, Trusty, etc). Do they still have the GC rule where players can sub onto the roster after group?
so, are you saying crocker is a liar? cause we have a nl roster, we have a gc prelim roster and then we have the statement that we are going to see two different teams. so, youre either passively arguing just to be a dick or you dont believe there will be two teams. which is it?
Thirty of the players on the preliminary Gold Cup roster play outside of MLS. That's exactly half, so it's extremely unlikely that it'll somehow end up being your favorite all-MLS squad. But why do you care anyway? You don't think any of these games matter one iota. Crocker doesn't have to be a liar (and no one thinks he is) for there to be some overlap between the two squads. You sure read a whole lot into "By the way, the roster hasn't been announced yet". But, hey, who are we to challenge anyone blasting a roster which hasn't even been released yet?
I think we’ll see a lot of rotation, but that doesn’t necessarily mean players like Long or Roldan will be on the roster. You could very easily put together a Gold Cup roster that is entirely different from the Nations League roster without picking them (and I do think we’ll actually have a handful of guys carry over). For instance GK: Turner, Slonina, Celentano LB: Tolkin, Gomez RB: Reynolds, Jones CB: McKenzie, Brooks, Miazga, EPB DM: Sands, Aidan Morris CM: Pomykal, Tim Tillman, Parks, Tessmann WF: Cowell, Mihailovic, Hoppe FW: Ferreira, Vazquez, Ebobisse It’s not the roster I’d pick (I’d include Arriola and Jordan Morris over Hoppe and Ebobisse for instance) but the only point is there’s a lot of ways the Gold Cup roster can go. They may be on the roster or they may not make it. But what I don’t believe in is getting upset about a roster that isn’t even picked yet.
Arriola has been out a while and wasn't playing that well so far this year. I believe Morris is also injured but I don't know if it's major. Acosta also but again don't know the severity. Everyone of those guys would be good to have in camp if for nothing else to set the tone of how to act and practice ie effort. Don't need tons of those guys but enough that continuity and attitude are conveyed.