Yeah, I just saw that treasure of a play. And yes, both he and Long love giving up the ball like a $10 whore gives it up.
Setting aside that account for just a moment: Did Zimmerman in fact give up the ball, and is that a professional-calibre decision by him? Hate that account if you like, but you should also hate Zimmerman's play to an equal degree.
Every player has poor plays. Just in USMNT play, we watched Ream get absolutely skinned multiple times in the last Nation's League. Brooks gave up two goals in 135 minutes in WCQ. Mark McKenzie passed the ball right to Tecatito. Richards and Miles both got skinned at Canada. And so on. It's the rate of mistakes that matters, especially to a centerback, not the cherry picked errors. Zimmerman makes less defensive mistakes than most, and while his passing is not spectacular, he has a decent long ball that stretches the D well. And will probably sync pretty well with Flo, who likes to make those runs.
The video speaks for itself. As for your view of my opinion, I will just have to accept it and try to soldier on …
Honestly can also point out Zimmerman has had some great long passes including one to Pulisic vs Morocco last year that led to a goal for Aaronson. Zimmerman isn't perfect and I'm fine with saying he should be phased out at least as a locked in starter but referencing an account that literally just trolls and posts any bad plays from MLS players? Can't take seriously
Like I said if the discussion wants to be on Zim's play? A valid discussion to have. But that account is a joke that will cherry pick bad plays from MLS players
Zimmerman’s passing (and CB a distribution among Gregg’s preferred CBs) has been bad. We have CBS who can pass, they just aren’t Gregg’s preferred options.
Look, if Zimmerman gave up the ball like that at a higher level league, like, say The Bundesliga, thats probably a goal. If we were OK with arguing that Brooks should have been left out when he was not on form a year ago, we also should say the same about Zimmerman now. Add into this the fact that Zimmerman is injured, while Brooks was named Hoffenheim's player of the month for May, keeping Zimmerman NOW, while excluding Brooks is fvkcing sh!tty. Brooks is playing better than Zimmerman right now, at a higher level, and is healthier than Zimmerman. There can be no excuse for this, unless you're just outright blackballing him. FFS, McKenzie also has a better claim to the roster than Zimmerman, based on current form and health. I dont really give a shyte about the Nations League, because its a fvkcing cash grab scam. But reward the players that are in form NOW, so that the meritocracy can be maintained in selection.
You are arguing that form or performance should be evaluated on a single, cherry picked play. That's ridiculous and I can literally make any player in the world look bad if the sample size is one single play. If you want to argue for Brooks or McKenzie, that's fine, Go for it. But selecting a single, cherry picked play by an account entirely made because they hate MLS players, is hardly proper basis for selection. Ability and even form should be evaluated over far longer samples. The play isn't "textbook" Zimmerman. He doesn't turn it over a ton deep at all. If you looked at a broader sample, that would become very clear.
Incorrect. One man plays at a higher level than the other. One man is healthier than the other. One man was named player of the month for his club, the other just gave up the ball in an MLS match. Based on current form, and on health, the correct choice was not made here. Brooks is the player that is on better form, and has a higher ceiling than Zimmerman. You wanna make a logical argument for Zimmerman? Let's hear it.
All I was arguing was that using a single play as indicative is poor logic. And yet you responded multiple times simply focusing on the play. So yeah, you were arguing that. Zimmerman has been by far our best defensive CB across the last two years, with only Robinson rivalling him, though he was hurt. He's the best we have in the air, and he's a very good decision maker in the press. A press we will be continuing as we are not adjusting tactics signficantly with an interim coach. He also has the size to bang with a very physical Mexico and Canada with CONCACAF refs. He's also a vocal back line member, and not all our centerbacks are. He's not a liability on the pass. I can understand people picking on Long, but Zimmerman doesn't make a ton of errors. He has a good long ball. If he plays at all, he's likely to be paired with Richards or Robinson, and when he's played with them, we've not suffered a ton on the build up. Brooks has been wildly inconsistent as a centerback all his career, with long swings of quality play and equally long chunks of poor play. The fact that he's been a disaster in WCQ for the US over two cycles isn't some special bit of pressure; it's just indicative of how you never know what you are going to get. He's great in the air and he's an amazing passer, but he's terrible in open space and has been exposed pressing before. He's doing well in Hoffenheim in a back three where he's protected by two young CBs. I don't think we're changing how we play now for a historically inconsistent CB, especially while we have no coach. And I have no interest in going away from having the press in the toolbox and used liberally. I admit that it will be hard to Brooks to prove consistency, but that's the other piece. I wouldn't have been angry to see him. I'm not angry to see anyone. But I wouldn't have called him in. I really like Mark McKenzie. I would have brought him in over Trusty, perhaps. I think Mark has a ton of potential and is underrated by folks. He's a better passer than Zimmerman, but he's worse in the air and he's still not physically as strong. Unfortunately, he's been error prone and his decision making has been so so in a US shirt. He needs to be given another chance, and it's a bummer he wasn't brought in after clearly making some improvements. I don't think he's better than Zimmerman right now. Belgium is a little better on average than MLS, probably, but it's hardly a significant step up. It's also a far less physical and more technical league, and so some of McKenzie's weaknesses (aerially and physically) won't be as exposed there as they might in CONCACAF. And that's before we get into having a veteran leader and a consistent vocal organizer out there when we have about two staff members. To me, it was a fight between McKenzie and Trusty. I haven't watched enough of Trusty to really tell you either way. The argument against Zimmerman isn't his passing; it'd be that he was hurt and could be rusty. Of course, if that's the argument, then Richards shouldn't be there, either. He's played once since mid-February.
Again, you're wrong. Based on current form and health, Zimmerman is the wrong choice. Both Brooks and McKenzie are healthy and on better form than Zimmerman. That play is simply indicative of how off form Zimmerman is right now. Add into it his health, and that his club is in mid-season, there simply is no good reason for him to be included over two others that are better right now, and healthier right now. Right now, he isn't. He may have been at other times over the past 2 years, but as we type this, he isn't. And yet he just gave it up like a $10 whore did. Without really being pressured. As mentioned above, RIGHT NOW, he's on form. RIGHT NOW, Zimmerman isn't. RIGHT NOW, Brooks is healthy. RIGHT NOW, Zimmerman isn't. As you'd mentioned, every player has made bad plays, including Brooks. But RIGHT NOW, you can find more bad play by Zimmerman than by Brooks. Or McKenzie, TBH. And he's healthy, while Zimmerman is not, And McKenzie is on better form RIGHT NOW than Zimmerman. And yet, he's hurt, AND he just passed the ball to the wrong team. Again. Because of Zimmerman's lack of form and lack of health and that his club is in season, its entirely the wrong time to bring him in. And even if you find him indispensable (I don't), this is a bullshyte grift of a cash grab tournament. Why WOULDN'T you want to try the others? At the same time, because Brooks and McKenzie are out of season, are healthy, and are on form, why not include them?
Am I? I see no evidence here, whatsoever. And on the passing ... yep, the only evidence presented is a single play. So yes, you seem to be arguing a LOT around this cherry picked play. Zimmerman has not been poor this season when he's played. Yes, yes, everything's shit and everyone is shit. Except what you think. US Soccer and the players would like to win this. I gave my reasons in quite a bit of detail. You seem to have missed addressing things like Brooks needing to be a back three and being a bad fit for how we press, for example. If we get a new coach where he makes more sense, or he has a longer spell of performance, sure. But half a season in a 3 ATB set up? I don't see anyone presenting an argument based on Brooks' play; it's just all "Bundesliga." McKenzie could have been called in. I would have been fine with it. I don't think he would've played anyway. I'm also fine with Walker. Let me ask again, if your concern is that Walker has only played a half a game in the last month, why aren't you so angry that Chris Richards is on this team?
You're more trusting than I am (bolded). I saw what Holland did to Dest and AR. That doesn't bother you? I mean, that was our stronger opposition.
Having different shapes available for each phase is important to not get outmatched by the opponent. Against England the US was mostly in a 442 midblock, which did then turn into a 3223 or 2323 (rotations we make out of every formation including the 4231 Hudson used). The physical output numbers against England were much lower than the other 2 group stage matches. Against Iran the US did switch to a 541 to neutralize their direct play and still have width in midfield. I have never, ever seen anyone claim that a 3 man CM with one DM burns out the DM. In fact it’s a role that can be played in a way that conserves energy and reduces the need to roam because of the required focus on shielding the backline and ability to shift the load to the other 2 CM (Beckerman did it this way, backstopping the rangy Jones and Bradley). Pirlo basically played as the sole pivot his entire career shielded on each side by more energetic, mobile CM/DMs. Nothing about the particular shape makes the 6 role especially physically taxing. In possession Double v Single pivot should be about how the other team is pressing and where they leave attackers and look to break from defense. That goes for lineups with 3 in CM or 2 (which can play either with a single pivot, alternating, or double). Most of the time in attack the USMNT is going to shift into some form of a 3223 or 2323 with either midfielders or FBs or maybe even a CB on that DM line. Out of possession it’s a function of the opponent’s shape and style and what kind of defensive approach is being taken. Playing expansively on defense is more physically taxing. It’s also what almost every side does when chasing a goal. It also suited our available talent and it’s not like we were doing what Red Bull or the Union or Marsch does. It was more about proper rest defense and counterpressing rather than murder ball (quick direct play, pressing, compacting the area around the ball, playing for 2nd balls). So I am in favor of having a strategic shift up our sleeve and mixing in more midblock and countering (like what we did against England). I did not rate Wales’s ability to attack a block, even though Ream vs Moore was an aerial mismatch we were lucky was not punished. But in a 1-0 gamestate I would try it. We did get about 7 chances to break and didn’t execute, but didn’t get to ration energy. The Netherlands chances were not especially fast break or direct play heavy, but they did try to go 2 and then 3 high to exploit us in those moments. We largely handled them. First goal was a long buildup from deep that broke our pressure and exploited a failure to recover or cover. 2nd goal came with numbers back off a throw in and was wingback to wingback. 3rd came after we had expended a lot of energy and we’re more stretched and failed to switch. But it wasn’t a counter or direct play to their attackers, it was also wingback to wingback, meaning they had to push numbers. We don’t play with wingers and attacking FBs on the same side. If Jedi pushes up Pulisic plays more narrow. If Dest overlaps Weah slides inside. Early in the cycle when we played with 2 wingers one FB stayed on the backline and the other moved inside on the DM line. Then we went to inverting both Ws into AM and pushing both FBs. Now we mix it up. Against El Salvador Pulisic started wider on the left, Jedi hung back a line, Gio slid to the left from AM, Zendejas came into AM on the right and Dest pushed up on the right making the 2323. The other common option out of a 4231 is to alternate what each FB and Winger does based on who is ball side.
They don't have to push numbers on wb to wb. Opposite. Wide to wide means the rest are central especially since it means there's 3atb. LVG said his plan all along was to attack the USA wide and US never adjusted. My problem with your post is also that you mention that we played in a way that suited out talent which is a way of saying we're small fry. The big 8 can play skills to match their plan based on their opponents' weaknesses.
Nobody has to, but they did. All of their goals and their quality chances came from pushing numbers. That’s when they go into their own 325. They just did it selectively, that was likely the plan but was also influenced by the game state. On the first goal they had 6 guys in our final third, 3 attacking box, 2 supporting from further out (including the weakside WB), and the crosser (the ballside WB). The second goal came with 8 Dutch players in our final third with the ballside WB hitting a low cross to the weakside WB crashing the box to be the 4th runner. The third goal came with only 7 Dutchmen in the final third, in the clear 325 shape, this time with an aerial cross going WB to WB and 4 runners in the box. No formation perfectly matches up with every other formation. A 433 lacks width in midfield while a 3/5 back has it. This same dynamic played out in the matches against Uruguay, against the full team and for the U20s. What typically happens is that the wingers in a 433 have to drop or track the opponent’s WBs. If a 433 is pressing and gets beat then the switch is on until they recover. If a winger falls asleep the switch is on. The hope for the 433 team is that the superior control over central areas and ability to press makes up for any failures to get back and cover the wide space on the weakside (an area that’s not especially dangerous). As to your 2nd point: 1. I was talking specifically about our more active expansive defensive approach. If we all remember back to the beginning of the cycle GGG had us playing a more contained 442 midblock that was quite effective at preventing chances from being created but was unsatisfying to many. After the NL loss to Canada we upped the pressure and that stuck with MMA. 2. On the small fry thing you’re wrong: https://theathletic.com/3974522/2022/12/06/usa-world-cup-tactics-soccer/?amp=1
We don’t have the talent of the top 8 and we probably don’t have the current performance level of a top 16 country. How many countries beat: 3 above average EPL defensive players 2 below average EPL attackers 1 below average EPL defender who doesn’t play much but is promising 1 below average EPL two-way mid 1 average Ligue 1 wide player 1 borderline all star in Ligue 1 at ST 1 good Eredivisie ST 2 average Eredivisie attackers 2 below average La Liga CM who play wide 1 above average Champo attacker 1 good BL attacker who found himself as a super sub 1 very good Turkish league ST 1 below average BL fullback 1 below average BL ST 2 best XI caliber Third Tier League CBs 4 all star contending Third Tier League Attackers The US came in 25th for top 5 league minutes: https://fbref.com/en/comps/Big5/nations/Big-5-European-Leagues-Nationalities
In regard to the Athletic article, note LVG is quoted as foll: A) "What I see is a vision,” Netherlands manager Louis van Gaal said after prepping to face Berhalter’s team in that round of 16 game, and that’s coming from a guy who knows a thing or two about coaching. “What I see is a team that is keen to execute that vision, and that is of the utmost importance." Thereafter, stats are listed showing USA eschewed long passes which would have been the sign of a "lesser" team in this context. OK, so why bring MMA who have not shown any capability of "executing that vision" going by progressive passing stats in fbref, say. Why not, thinks LVG in prepping, set up to sit in a formation that dares that midfield to pass through without fb's and see 'whatcha got'? Vision is great. Executing is another matter. Like Bum said, "it's not what you know, it's what you can get your players to do." B) On another point. When you look at the difference of the two teams, to me there was offensive quality, offensive finishing quality, that Holland had that we’re lacking,” Berhalter said after the round of 16 loss. As in: we did all the other stuff — don’t blame me. He may have had a point. The above stuff about finishing comes after a seciton showing that USA, as of the day of going out, was near top in percentage of possessions that ended in final third. Now, I can give the ball to Nagbe and tell him to take the ball into the final third and he'll do it 9 times out of 10. Getting it there is one thing. Getting it there with advantage, in a position to defend if the ball is lost , with one man on the far post, one on the near post one at the top of the box, and a 4th at the top corner of the box - that is another story. I'll leave this discussion right there because it delineates the next hurdle for the next manager, providing it is not Berhalter because I'm not into 'dominating' as much as winning.
Tim Weah on #USMNT success over México: "(...) we are definitely a family & no one can take that away, you know, Gregg really helped us form this type of relationship with each other, so yeah, he was huge, huge important part of this team so hopefully, yeah hopefully comes back" pic.twitter.com/tKuwwufN4h— Michele Giannone (@MicheleG3) June 9, 2023 I’d be curious at this point what someone like Pepi would say (as he hasn’t been asked as far as I can tell). Don’t have much
Like any coach, or professional manager in corporate america, there are usually a few kind of people and their comments after working for them or playing for them. The automatic starters who were given pretty free reign are going to love the coach. Of course they would, why wouldn't they? the guys who feel they should have played more and only got little morsels aren't going to be a fan and will hope a new coach with fresh ideas comes in and they hope the new coach gives them an honest look. Then you have your guys that are pretty bad ass competitors that will play hard for any coach that is hired, they mostly wont say much because to them they don't care. Same way with corporate america.