Agreed. We do have some young talented attacking players. If you want to include 1 or maybe even 2 "hustle" attacking players to kill a game or deal with the other teams outside back getting forward I get it. We brought in Morris, Zardes, Roldan, Arriola, Lewis That's 5 work hard attacking players! our only goal scorers were Jozy (questionable) and Pulisic. Again roster selection. Why not bring in 2 of (Morris, Zardes, Roldan, Arriola, Lewis) and then Weah and Sargent. You need a goal? You have some options! You need to kill a game? You have some options! We needed a goal and he brought in Lovitz! Our only option when Jozy got fatigued was Zardes.
The Lovitz sub was just emblematic. Kinnear used to coach my Dynamo. He would make those kind of subs, put in a back or DM, to "free himself up to push an attacker a little forward." Who was usually dog tired from starting and playing 70+. It didn't usually work. It is an inherently conservative and arguably scared response. Like you are afraid if you take a risk we get burned and lose. So rather than throw a danger man forward, you try and reinforce something further back. News flash pal, we lost anyway. Importantly, Lovitz did squat in his position once subbed. FWIW I don't even understand how it fit into the late game concept. We just started whacking balls downfield. What do I need a slightly more pushed up left back for? Roldan battled but you needed chances not battling. Zardes was OK but didn't make anything happened. Already been said a jillion times but we got outcoached.
Exactly! So even if you are going to sub in a back to allow one of your attackers a little more freedom to go score a goal, WHO WAS THE ATTACKER WE WE WERE FREEING UP? We didn't have any in the game. Arriola----------Zardes-----------Roldan ---------Pulisic------------McKennie (Who had a shocker of a game) Who were we freeing up? Pulisic was already free to go forward. Bradley?
Circularity issue where we continue to miss that one way of getting our better but underused players fitter and sharper is to second guess their club coaches, bring them in, and get them fit and sharp in OUR CAMP. We have been in camp 5 weeks. We have been playing games for a month now. Are you telling me we with all that time we couldn't have gotten fit and sharp Wood, Sargent, Green, etc.? My put up or shut up line on this would be that weeks of camp and games to get back fit and sharp IS PRECISELY THE CONCEPT BEHIND CAMP CUPCAKE. But we are "playing to win." Investing in good but underused players is a risk. I think this argument that a guy wasn't sharp really works better for an international date when you are either ready or not.
One of the key roles in any big tournament is a person who can come off the bench late in a big match and create chances. We had 2 people remotely capable of scoring goals (face goals don't count. Sorry Zardes) and they were both starting. We brought over the hill out of form cb's! The talent pool isn't amazing and we are paying the price for our lost years. BTW, why did Lletget leave? He played in a match right after?
AND you can't knock Sargent's sharpness and then bring in Zardes and Lewis. I realize that Sargent isn't a winger but maybe you have to go to a 2 front or change shapes to get a potential goal scorer in the match. Ghasp an adjustment! You need a goal late Weah---------- Sargent-----------Pulisic -------Lletget-----------Mckennie (or even Green)------------ OR Arriola--------Zardes-----------Roldan
Something that has been lost in US Soccer is basic tactical bluntness and a concept for coming back. I put in a winger and a target man. I start crossing balls in. I remember us tying ES from 2-0 down in a 2014 cycle qualifier using Jozy as target man. It doesn't even have to be that. Just a concept of how we will come back, married to a personnel package that can do it. I think we did resort very late to whacking balls into the box.....but he'd set it up with Zardes Roldan Arriola to receive. So the personnel didn't match the concept. I think we are stuck in a serious identity problem where we have turned into that team in your league that commits to ground ball passing -- like on all the way back to the defenders and keeper -- but actually isn't the best skilled team in your league. I think we all know teams that almost do you a favor of trying to be cute for 90 as an identity, and are above hoofing it downfield. So we routinely put a keeper shaky balls to feet under pressure, and give away dangerous balls in our end, instead of having him bomb the ball to the other end. And so on up the field. The ex defender in me thanks teams like that. I will happily bottle you up on your end while you wrestle with your own snob reflex.
That was not Mexico A. The half-smart response to what we saw is change based on the fact you couldn't beat the team you need to beat to progress, and at home. We have arguably regressed since we won the mirror fixture last year.
No, sorry, if we brought back the pedigree players from the big clubs we probably lose even worse. The answer is more complex.
I did feel like with the tick back to Miazga and others that you could draw a line through GC 2017 to this, with no irony about what immediately followed that trophy.
GB said at halftime we needed to have more of the ball. Then he subbed in Zardes as our 9?! I am trying to be patient but soooo many of his decisions don't even make sense. If you want Zardes to be your 9, then go direct and ask him to run onto balls in the channel. The next call-ins will be important. Did he learn the lessons he needed to, or are we still going down the same road of destruction we have been on for a while. Weah-------Sargent--------Pulisic -----McKennie------Lletget--------- --------------Adams----------------- Cannon-- Long---Zimmerman-- Yedlin We'd be young, but commit to it and go with it. I'd actually like to see Jozy on the team to come off the bench when we need a goal with 15 to play.
I took the fact that a player that young -- about whom we are concerned for playing time -- got 1 game all summer and was on neither tournament roster, was a massive blunder. You claim he is the striker of the future but then invest one timid game in him this whole summer. GB lets other teams dictate tactics and lets other club coaches tell him which of his players are good and on form. This along with the midtable past is what concerned me. He hasn't had to win. He hasn't harnessed his own particular horse sense towards a dominant project. He takes what others give his midtable teams and then finishes where they deserve.
The Sargent thing is inexcusable to me! He was eligible to play in a World Cup! I can not fathom his thinking. Nothing he says makes sense. He spouts a bunch of nonsense soccer cliches. He is way more interested in sounding smart than he is winning matches.
We have given him the freedom of an auteur film director when he didn't do Get Out or Roma, but instead the Dumbo remake, or the Beach Bum. For some reason we started treating any idiot who gets that job like a genius for getting a permanent name plate on the door. Oh, let me give you all the room you need to work your magic. When what we did is hire a career midtable coach whose one final they blew in the first 10 minutes coming out flat like a pancake. Which to me should instead be the third place is you're fired Glengarry Glen Ross speech. Based on your CV we built in a trap door to use at a moment's notice if we don't like results. You know, the interim situation Bradley had to earn his way out of. Also, with the JK snob era, a disconnect has developed between results and accountability -- based on the auteur claim that you are amidst a project. So results can be claimed to be time deferred. Give The System more time. When otherwise the appropriate response is we just lost to Mexico B, and we have lost to them too many times for years, and this doesn't appear to be change, and might even be a negative trend since Sarachan, who beat them last fall. This is because fans who watch too much TV soccer wish their team looked different than it is. The gap between wish fulfillment and reality ironically allows fans to give struggling coaches too much faith and time. To me this sort of faith should be earned.
The Sargent thing is really strange. We have heard thru various media types that he wasn't as interested in going to the U20 World Cup as somebody like Tim Weah. Sargent had been to the event two years ago. Also the U20s didn't particularly need him. Soto had a nice event. Rennicks came on and got goals when called up (and some important ones). Sargent had to be on the Gold Cup roster. I also would have taken Jonathan Amon over Jonathan Lewis, but maybe that's just me. He's another that got a senior USMNT recently, but wasn't at either event. The U20s were pretty deep on the wings and up top. But anyway, none of this is really the reason we lost to Mexico.
I used to be on the fence about Pulisic...thinking he’s probably going to be a really good player (like a Donovan or Dempsey), but he has the chance to be WAY more polished. Like Donovan and Dempsey had 1 or 2 skillsets that made them fanatic players, but you can tell this kid can be a total package type player. My fear is he will go to waste. I was at first hesitant on him joining Chelsea because I thought it was going to be the same story of a US player joining a big European team, but I really think he will have the chance to actually become a key piece to their squad (maybe not right off the bat).... That said, this right here needs to be focus #1 for the US squad - finding players who are going to compliment Pulisic. Players who are good enough that other teams won’t simply lock down on Pulisic. Because the better he gets, and with a piss poor roster, that’s all teams will have to do. Case in point...Messi playing with Argentina. In my mind, the greatest player ever (lol keep your options to yourself on this), but even The Great Messi has shown its impossible to do anything without a supporting cast..... From what I can tell, Gregg seems to be focused on brining in talent that will work around the tactical formation he’s wanting to implement. I hope after this tournament, they see that priority #1 needs to be brining in talent that will allow Pulisic to thrive...and then go from there in regards to overhauling the US formations...
Disregarding the massive difference in demonstrated ability, this is a great comparison. The other ten guys have to be able to take the heat off the superstar. Donovan always had a few strong supporting players that, while not on his level, still forced defenders to play. In 2002, he had McBride, (young) Beasley, Stewart, Jones, Reyna, and even a young GB. Unfortunately, the trend with US coaches seems to be formation over players. It's almost like it's ingrained in our sporting culture. Having coached multiple high school sports ranging from football to lacrosse to soccer, the common thread I've picked up at EVERY clinic I've ever attended is establishing a system. While that may work in stop-and-go football, it doesn't work in a sport that requires constant real-time adjustments. The last time I coached soccer, I refused to have a system in place prior to the season because I wanted to build success using the parts available (and I took the team to its highest ever finish as a result). When you look at the true soccer powers, you see a lot of flexibility and creativity in their rosters which translates into greater fluidity on the field. If we can't produce solid DMs, then we need to adjust our roster to account for that instead of throwing out a slow and overrated coach's son.
This, this, this x 1,000. I will even take it a step further and say the coaching courses, especially the more advanced ones tend to graduate coaches that think the game and the team is about them and not the players on the pitch. The one thing we lose up and down the line in US Soccer, from coaches to clubs, is the focal point being on the players. Some may argue that a high press, possession, low block, mid block are all "systems", but they aren't they are styles of play that every good team can employ when needed. This stupid inverted RB to CM and LB to LCB is a system, and quite honestly it is shit. Instead of taking the players available and developing them so they can compete with the worlds best, Berhalter thinks it is his system that will enable them to compete. To be fair, coaching any NT can put managers in positions that are different and at the moment, Berhalter is caught between two minds. If a manager has a veteran squad that has advanced to the latter stages of a WC or Euro Championship, the job is about winning. If a manager has a young squad, coming on the back of missing a WC, it has to be about developing individual players to be able to get to the latter stages of major competitions. I get the feeling he is still charged with winning, and I think that will hurt us come 2022, because it will still be about his system and not the players improvement.
Sargent didn't get many matches with his club. He needed matches! The ole, "I am not that interested" in playing in a World Cup is BS. The fed should have had a plan for him and missed a huge opportunity to get him experience. If Sargent had missed Germany's roster I would understand. We took Jonathon Lewis and Omar Gonzalez. We have plenty of backs. Again, we lacked real attacking options and left him home. Unforgivable.
My issue is taking some of the younger players would have done both, develop younger players AND give us our best chance of winning. This wasn't a decision between older experienced talent and younger talent. It was between Old not that good and play in crappy leagues vs younger more talented than their older counterpart. HE TOOK JONATHAN LEWIS! He is young and not talented. He is really better than Josh Sargent?
Nope, sorry, buzz. It's in flux but it's not rebuilding. Wise rebuilding teams typically commit to their kids and then build around them. We didn't rebuild, we aren't purposefully risking advancement to test the kids instead of the veterans. No, this is actually like my Dynamo were for a few years when we missed the playoffs, trying to slap together a team from veterans past their prime or cast off from their last stop. Let me gather some brand names with established bona fides and try and squeeze some more out of them. Why? Because Demarcus Beasley is a brand name and it's CYA to sign brand names. But whether you are actually getting 60%Beasley is another question. The Dynamo did not take back off until it committed to risk on the younger generation of forwards, the Hondurans and Manotas. The worst possible scenario, which we already did last cycle, is make excuses for early cycle struggles, which will likely continue on into qualifying, and fart around until it's almost too late to make a meaningful change. This is the part of the cycle where one can pop out the coach, replace him, and fix things prior to stuff being "on the line." Otherwise you are implicitly saying that even with misgivings you HAVE to give a new coach on into the period when his mistakes cost us for good. Also normally one points to positive signs to offset the obvious bad day. What is it you think he is doing well that buys him indulgence? The tournament rank? I thought we should have run the table. Selection? Pffft. Subbing? Horrific. Tactics? Meh. New young players brought in? Few. I mean, I indulged my Astros as they accumulated first picks and Altuve and whatnot. I could see the future that would be elevated and accumulate. This instead is give some older players more time, and scattershot the next generation choices. I would be more indulgent if like Sarachan he grasped where our future bread is buttered, and took a risk in its favor. That is rebuilding. What we're doing instead is closer to perseverating. I would give him limited credit that players like Omar and Trapp were marginal participants this time. But you don't get massive coaching paychecks for being slow on the uptake. They took others' roster spots so he could learn the obvious. We still haven't learned lessons on Lovitz, Zardes, and others that are months deep in tape. To me this is repeating last cycle's issues with being slow on the uptake and with the trap doors.
The false narrative that rebuilding and trying to win are mutually exclusive. Sargent is JUST rebuilding. He is also better than most of the attacking options GB chose. So to recap, he didn't choose a fwd who is better and younger and has a brighter future??? If that is the roster that GB thought gave us our BEST chance at winning I am even more annoyed. If that was the sole purpose and he thinks Jonathon Lewis and Omar Gonzalez give us that, so help us all!
What's worse is if you look at his stats, Lewis has barely played this season himself. Like 2 starts and a couple more appearances. So you leave off other players with a lot more banked history and proven production as "rusty," but then Lewis. And if I was going to wager on a pool player with upside not playing much, well down the list. I am actually pro "pick the performers" but I think we have lost our mind in terms of selection in light of club form. When Dempsey picked clubs unwisely he didn't disappear. Pulisic doesn't get dropped depending how Favre feels (or Lampard), But we definitely do it downroster, and not with any consistency. I understand the idea that Sargent looked rusty, and maybe he is reticent tying his coaching future to him, but if we are looking at the future, at qualifying in a year, precisely what I want to know is, if I had to play people, what would happen? Instead we're back making more dumb percentage bets that older players hold up. And we have no idea if we had to field Weah, Sargent, etc. what would happen.
It's an immediate expectations thing and a horizon thing. I think most of us could agree that the next boom of talent is under 25 and in many cases under 20. It is not proven yet as club players, mostly. So a coach who wants -- or feels his job requires -- immediate wins, might be reticent. There is no guarantee what they do. And there is no organizational or coaching commitment to the next generation. They say things but their actions do not reflect that commitment. My thing is in my bones when I saw that lineup I knew how this would finish. That generation is competitive, but not good enough. The bad risk is limited but known. But there is also little surprise upside. To me the risk and reward are higher on the new kids, where the right combination might have won that game, and the wrong one could also implode. But I think our goal long term should be sort out which ones are that right combination that changes the trajectory. Otherwise, yeah, you can play it safe and get semis or runnerup. But since when have we been content there? "Oh, but the system project." This has been a project for several years now. How about wins? When does it end? When is it accountable? And at what point am I allowed to step back and ask why we dismantle the 2002/2010 approach in favor of less successful mysticism. I think with the right bunch of, honestly, mostly attacking players, we could have won that thing. And at minimum we could have tested that generation and figured out what they have. And if they don't win, and you get cynical, Jozy and Zardes and Bradley and Ream and co. are always just a phone call away, and at least you would be making that call from knowledge and not from veteran bias or fear of the unknown.
I don't get playing this in Chicago, either as a home field given demographics, or for stadium quality, or for playing on sod. Other than it's where the Fed is. Which is pretty pathetic a site selection basis. Yes, the field will be jacked up, rolled out grass, and it may be a road advantage, but we won't have to travel far from home to the windowed suite....