———————Pulisic———————- ——Aaronson—————Reyna———- Robinson———————————-Dest ————McKennie——Adams———— —-—Richards—Brooks—Cannon——— ———————Steffen———————— Cb’s outside of Brooks still a question mark
I agree, probably not taking Vines in favor of taking Hoppe or another attacker. If the game’s tomorrow and everyone’s healthy… GK: Horvath, Steffen, Turner CB: Brooks, Richards, Sands (also cover at the 6), McKenzie OB/WB: Dest, A. Robinson, Cannon, Acosta (also cover at MF but I think he’s more likely to play as a LB in an emergency situation). MF: McKennie, Adams, Musah, de la Torre (or Busio), Lletget. (Yes I’m only taking 5 here; any number of of the 7 forwards listed here can easily play in the midfield.) FW: Pulisic, Reyna, Aaronson, Weah, Dike, Pefok/Sargent/Hoppe/Zardes (pick 2 of 4). (And yes I realize that I haven’t bolded a #9, mostly because I have no idea who I’d pick right now. Might be one of the more situationally-driven starting positions on the roster.)
Vines vs Hoppe was my toughest choice. The one thing I get nervous about is needing Dest to be a starting RB AND a backup LB. I just don't want anyone to be in that position given the compressed schedule. But man, would I love Hoppe's "try some s***" creativity on this roster.
we "need" a vines about 11 times more than we need a hoppe. its a bummer he (vines) has shown once that hes still not there and once that hes pretty close- but i just cant put him in a 23 yet. then again, id use antonee robinson all day everyday so what does it matter what i think?
post-gc group stage update me __________steffen__________ _____richards____brooks_____ dest________________robinson __________adams___________ ____mckennie____reyna______ weah_________________pulisic ___________dike____________ berhalter __________steffen__________ _____richards____brooks____ cannon________________dest __________adams__________ ____mckennie___lletget______ _reyna_______________pulisic __________sargent__________ 23 man roster (predicting berhalter) gk steffen gk horvath gk turner rb cannon rb moore cb brooks cb richards cb mckenzie cb zimmerman cb ream lb dest lb robinson dm adams dm yeuill cm mckennie cm lletget cm musah rw reyna rw weah st sargent st zardes lw pulisic lw aaronson 24-30 rb yedlin cb/dm sands dm busio cm acosta rw arriola st dike st p-funk *long (into 23 *morris (into depth)
I write this fully realizing your 23 was a prediction of Berhalter's roster and not your choice. For me, if you are going to bring a Yueill type, it's better to just bring Busio. Both players have similar drawbacks, but at least Busio provides more versatility and speed of play. I put Busio as one of my "probables" in terms of who could be a contributor to the USMNT during qualifying. I'm not sure he's there yet, but he's a lot closer than Yueill is or will be. Yueill is Berhalter's current version of Trapp, and I fail to understand why he continues to make the same mistakes with trying to shoehorn a DLP who is not close to international quality into his roster time after time.
I think Busio is already better than Yueill and for sure has a higher ceiling. I think the main issue is he just isn't strong enough in that he's too easily pushed off the ball and that he doesn't win enough duels in the midfield. It's definitely something he can work and that I assume he will when he moves to Italy. I kind of see him as a guy who will get called into the larger groups just so he can have the experience of what its like to go through WCQ, and then player a larger role in some of the later windows.
Ledezma was a huge omission that I made. He's on my Watching Closely list. Hopefully he gets back soon. Amon was a last second addition, but probably a mistake, like you suggest. I would take Sands over McKenzie and any of the other center backs besides Brooks and Richards eight days a week. I have not generally been a fan of playing three in the back, but the Brooks--Sands--Richards possibility is changing my mind on that. Even though it does put another defender on the field, this back line helps our ability to possess and dictate games as well as defend aggressively like no other back line can. All three are good with the ball, and Sands is especially dynamic with his play and passing from there. I can't believe that he has had this reputation for being a bad passer or pedestrian in possession. He has precision that no other defender in our pool can match. We have never had the ability to truly dictate games against decent opponents. McKenzie is still not the type of player who can do that. Miazga and Long are nowhere close to having that ability. CCV is not that type of player. I'm not sure about EPB, but it doesn't appear that he does either. Zimmerman is adequate, but not close to the level of the top center backs in the pool. Robinson does not have that in his game, either. Finally, the flexibility and versatility that a Brooks--Sands--Richards grouping gives us is extremely enticing. Sands and Richards are especially versatile in how they can cover the midfield and flanks, respectively. This is a theoretical exercise, not "who would play @jamaica tomorrow." In theory, the attacking and defensive qualities of Brooks--Sands--Richards give the US a dynamic that we have never had in the back. I think it takes us to a new level in terms of tactical flexibility and truly dictating games with possession.
I'm not one to rain on peoples optimistic daydreaming, and I do like Sands and think he earned more looks for sure, but really? All this from a good game against Martinique and Canada? Two good games and we are putting him next to Bundesliga CBs and declaring he can help dictate games? Taking him over players who have actually played in real A games with trophies on the line? That have played in CL qualifiers? Like I get it, he is doing really well. But people like to overestimate abilities and underestimate how hard it is to take the next step. And A Team WCQs against motivated opponents is a far cry than Martinique and Canada in an off year gold cup. I mean, people were optimistic about McKenzies passing ability until he went up against the most frenzied and motived opponent in his career, a national rival that always wants to bury us. And we saw what happened there. So yeah. Sands deserves more looks. But lets pump the breaks before we roll out the red carpet.
Sands has improved his passing greatly; you can see it in the stats. He had this reputation because he was very, very cautious with his passing. He's been very good, but still seems to lack the long range accuracy you'd absolutely want to call him a very good passer. He's nowhere near the passer of Brooks. What abilities comprise the ability to "truly dictate games against decent opponents"? I can't figure out if you are still talking passing, defensive play, both. I am not a fan of Brooks anywhere but the middle. Having him cover on the wings is an unnecessary recipe for disaster. Sands' footspeed isn't great, either, though. I think Sands has been very good, but there level of competition has been a step down. I think McKenzie is faster and a better passer, but there's no doubt Sands absolutely sees the game defensively at a pretty special level. He's always read the angles and distances well and understood when to move up, when to move back, where to be, etc. But he's absolutely been the best thing we've found out in this tourney.
I've been calling for Sands as a starter on this team for long before these last two games. He has shown the same quality that people are now seeing with the national team over the last three seasons at NYCFC. He absolutely belongs "next to Bundesliga CBs," and I bet he is playing at that level soon. Comparing Sands' passing ability to McKenzie is not close. Nobody in our pool has the precision that Sands passes with. People look at the long flashy passes to make their judgements on a center backs passing ability, but that's a fallacy. Like I said, this is theoretical. I seriously believe this is the best lineup that we could put out (or something very close to it possibly with a guy or two from my bench inserted), but it's not what I'm suggesting we run out at the beginning of qualifying.
I disagree with Sands being a much improved passer. He has always been very efficient and precise with his passing making quick decisions and delivering with good pace just about every time. I would agree that Brooks has much better range in his passing, but I would take Sands' ability in the short/medium range. Sands has an ability to carry the ball that Brooks does not have. That added quality makes him more dynamic in how he is able to dictate game. It also makes his lesser ability in passing range less significant because he can play in tighter spaces and create numerical advantages where a center back who doesn't progress the ball on the dribble can't. The defensive side of the game is important, too, but that's not really what I was talking about. Sands' versatility there is a huge bonus. I have Adams on that side of the midfield for this reason. Aaronson on the wing might not be realistic for the reason you point out, I admit. At the end of the day, I don't think having Brooks on the outside of a back three is any less stout that someone like Zimmerman. I don't think that McKenzie is close to the ball player that Sands is. Similar to Brooks, McKenzie might have some range that Sands doesn't have, but he isn't as accurate and not as dynamic carrying the ball. I'm not sure if there is any tangible difference in their speed, but maybe you are correct. I do know that Sands has superior positioning and awareness, which are two of his big strengths. I think his reading of the game is on another level compared to McKenize, and that ability is more important that raw speed, I would argue. I do think that McKenize is the only other center back that we have who is in the neighborhood of Brooks, Sands, and Richards in terms of overall quality and ability.
I'm not sure if anyone is saying Sands needs to start against Mexico. What I do want to see is him get more chances to see if he can be in the 23-man roster. I don't think anyone's expecting him to start - particularly when looking at the starters in central midfield and center back. But those positions have injury issues and need quality depth. I'd also say that pretty much anyone's going to walk into some of these CONCACAF matches for the first time and be overwhelmed. Heck, Pulisic struggled some at first and Reyna hasn't been lighting it up either. The issue is how well they'll adjust. I'm willing to see Sands get that opportunity.
The complaint with Sands was never short range accuracy. It was that he couldn't do anything more. That's a problem, but Sands has solved it by at least stretching to forward passing and a mid-range ability. There's stats to back this up. I've never seen Brooks have really any kind of accuracy issue, but his long range passing is an absurd weapon as we saw in Nations League. I can't put Sands' passing up there in any way -- I don't care if his short range accuracy is 2% higher; Brooks' ability to create offense is next level. Not dogging Sands here; I just think there's a lack of appreciation for Brooks. Brooks isn't bad at this; he's pretty good going forward. Sands did look great in handling deep in his own end but there is a difference in competition that still needs to be tested. I don't want Zimmerman there, either! If I play a back three, I need to have my wingbacks be weapons. If I have to hold them back to protect the outside, then I'm suddenly in a defensive formation. Which is okay if the point is to play a back 5, but in most cases, it's not. I think you are underestimating the offensive value of a strong line-breaking pass in both McKenzie and Brooks' case. McKenzie ain't Brooks, but the pass to Dike against Costa Rica also isn't abnormal for him. I think positioning/awareness and speed are on a sort of sliding scale. The faster/quicker you are, the worse your positioning can be. The better you read the game, the slower you can be. In a few cases, speed can do what positioning simply cannot (a high press will create those situations), where in a bunker, positioning and awareness are certainly more important than speed (but maybe not quickness). I am excited about Sands, but I think like a lot of these guys, there's a next step. And that's challenging him against better players. Hopefully we keep winning and we see him not only against Jamaica and an offensively good Qatari team but also Mexico. No Jimenez, no Lozano, but still a test up from Canada sans Davies and David. He looks great, no doubt, though.
Mostly agree, but you almost imply that I am replacing Brooks with Sands when I am actually adding Sands into the center of a three man back line that also features Brooks. Brooks' ability to hit nice long passes is not completely lost playing less centrally. Also, whereas you think that playing Brooks at left center back Brooks makes him susceptible to getting beaten in space, I would argue that having Sands and Richards beside him and Adams and a wing player in front of him gives him much more coverage than just having one center back to his right, Adams in front of him, and potentially Dest or Robinson beside him on his left. Brooks--Sands--Richards gives us lots of flexibility defensively and allows us to be aggressive in the press, and these three put us in a position to actually build attacks from any point along the back line. Ultimately, playing these three guys (along with Adams) is the only way that I can imagine a US buildup that can consistently get the ball to Pulisic, Reyna, Dest, Sargent/Dike, McKennie, etc. in advantageous situations. If/when we get to that point, I think we will be looking at a potentially special team.
None of us really have a clue what the best XI is yet because our A team hasn’t played enough together and there are so many new, emerging players that things are going to change rapidly.... Nonetheless, here’s what I’m thinking for our first round of WCQ against El Salvador (9/2. away), Canada (9/5. home), Honduras (9/8. away); meant to win, and help us figure out our best team. GK: Steffen, Turner, Horvath, Ochoa RB: Yedlin, Moore, Reynolds CB: Brooks, Carter-Vickers CB: Richards, M. Robinson LB: Dest, A. Robinson, Vines MF: Adams, Sands, Johnny MF: McKennie, Musah, De la Torre RW: Reyna, Weah AM: Lletget, Green, Clark LW: Pulisic, Aaronson, Konrad FW: Sargent, Dike, Pefok, Hoppe Vs El Salvador ——————Dike———————- Pulisic——————————Weah ———McKennie—-Reyna———- ——————Adams—————— Dest———————————Moore ———Brooks———Richards——— ——————-Horvath—————— Bench: Steffen, Miles, Reynolds (Moore), Musah (Adams), Lletget (Reyna), Aaronson (Weah), Sargent (Dike) vs Canada ——————Sargent——————- Pulisic———————————Reyna ———-McKennie——Aaronson—— ———————Adams—————— Jedi——-——————————-Dest ————-Brooks——Miles————— ———————Turner——————— Bench: Steffen, Carter-Vickers (Miles), Vines, Sands (Adams), Musah (McKennie), Konrad (Pulisic), Hoppe (Sargent) Vs Honduras ——————Dike—————— Pulisic—————————Weah ——McKennie——Lletget——- ——————Adams—————- Dest——————————-Yedlin ———Brooks———Richards—— ——————-Steffen————— Bench: Turner, Miles, Jedi (Yedlin), Sands (Richards), Musah (Weah), Aaronson (Lletget), Pefok (Dike)
Thanks for putting your thoughts out there. I won't slice and dice your selections here because I don't have the time or energy to offer my own. However, I will say this one thing: With a selection of players as we have, under no circumstance should any single player be starting 3 games in a 6 day span. To me, that is madness. We are asking for trouble if we do.
I don’t see how we don’t start Pulisic, McKennie, Adams, Brooks, and Dest as much as we can. Everyone else could be rotated but these are our make or break players.
I understand your thinking, but as the saying goes (I have seen it attributed to different people, so I won't say a name) -- "Fatigue makes cowards of us all." 4 years ago, we failed to qualify because we ran out a tired team of players in a TWO game window, against a ragtag team of fresh T&T backups, and lost. This isn't FIFA on our gaming system. These guys are humans who will get tired, become sloppy as a result, and be subjected to greater chance of injury if they are run into the ground. They are only make or break players if they have their legs. If not, all of them will become a liability.
Very true... and funny... my daughter and I have been on Shakespeare kick. And just watched the ‘48 Hamlet (on HBO)... much better than the one with Branagh.
Everyone toss aside Owen Otasawie. He is now healthy and practicing with the wolfs first team under a new coach. If he becomes a starter, what are going to do with him?