I always figured they'd be better coordinated in the second cycle together as the players are more experienced and are starting to finally get minutes together. The next cycle is the danger cycle because whatever manager they have might be conservative in player choices like Martino was with MX and not keep adding great young players. Think what you will about GB's coaching but very few coaches would have used that many super young players.
Sorry about the broken record mode I'm in but......... those fullbacks Berhalter wants up and wide? Recall, LVG used his forwards to cut off service to them Here's analysis of Postcoglou and his Spurs: minute 1:50 "the fullbacks are midfielders......"
They weren’t up and wide when the Dutch FWs were cutting the lanes to them. They were in the typical FB spaces wide on the DM line.
Berhalter has always been good about adding young players and he’s also dropped guys when people didn’t expect him too. The fact that he was willing to phase out guys like Zardes or Lletget or that he didn’t take Steffen to the World Cup is a good sign that he’s going to be willing to evolve the pool as the cycle goes.
These are not mutually exclusive. I think a lot of it will depend upon the continued evolution/progression of the current roster but regardless of exactly how that proceeds, I do believe that the danger of a new coach relying on too many vets and leaving out new blood will by less likely due to the current ages of our best players. Many of our key players will be 30+ in 2030. A handful will be solidly in their primes but I think that we will have enough very good new players in their primes that the new coach will have little choice. In addition, the dynamic will be completely different in 2030, than it was in 2022. This past cycle, required a complete rebuild...players, system, character of team...everything and more. When choosing the players, those that were considered to be the best players were overwhelmingly the youngest. As a result, leadership was a legitimate question. Many argued that the young players had enough experience at a high level that the leadership offered by guys like Arriola, Roldan and others wasn't needed but it was at least arguable that it was needed. In 2030, that argument will be far less likely to be a factor. The guys on the fringe will not be 20, nor will they be long-term journeymen vets. Ideally, and imo, the leadership will be coming from the first 11, not the bench. The guys at the fringe will be 22-25yr old up and comers entering their primes and 28+ guys that fare trying to hold on to their spots. Choosing the best roster may not be any easier in 2030, but improved depth will make errors at the margin far more forgiving.
It is encouraging to see Berhalter’s roster selection. I assume there are good enough reasons for the fringe choices, and that Jedi needs a rest. I am even more encouraged with the assignment of Gio and Tillman to the midfield category in the announcement. If either or both get serious AM minutes that will be terrific to see. I hope he puts either of them at AM with Musah at the 6 or as part of a 2-Dm or 2 deeper CMs, rather than stick Maloney or Cardoso out there with Wes and Musah as dual 8s.
The US can play, I can see that. But are they dangerous? No way. I hope the coaching philosophy involves solving this ongoing dilemma. Also, how about having some balls and getting someone on free kicks who can consistently deliver a nice dead ball. I bet there are a hundred people in the stands who could do it I refuse to believe the US can’t find anyone. I’m tired of them pissing away precious opportunities and no one seems the least bit bothered about it.
I do think there are valid concerns about GGGs tactics and play style and how it stretches the limits of the player pool. There is truly no one near Adams when it comes to the 6 in the 4-3-3, and even that isn't enough at this level of competition - look at the NL game. And yeah, Pulisic had an amazing goal (and he has no doubt shown he is the only American who you can rely on at this level) but as we all see, the general game plan is to slow the game down and send in crosses. I still can't accept that is the best way for direct, athletic players like Weah, Pulisic, Balogun, Musah, to play. So when Adams is out, the defensive is exposed. McKennie and Musah at this level are tweeners at best; McKennie can hold his own, Musah didn't. Reyna had some nice passes but needs to be more present on defense and even better on offense to make a difference. Weah is stuck trying to kick the ball past his player and run faster. Balogun is invisible. Honestly it's all just kind of a mess. You pull Adams off the pitch, and it really starts to fall apart super fast.
Berhalter's take on the German match. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/38660358/usa-undone-defensive-issues-germany-loss-berhalter
I want to hope that BJ has his ear. Starting Reyna and Weah both was a step in the right direction and, I hope, a permanent step forward. I wish the shape in possession had involved Reyna behind the line instead of inside right on a front 4 with the two DMs behind (and/or Dest tucking in behind). I think that particularly when Balo is playing we need a CAM. Again, if not Reyna, then CP or Tillman. But Reyna is best at it. I don’t want to think that when it comes to in-game tactical adjustments we will always be worse than the opponent. But certainly whatever changes were made at the half we’re not good. I tend to think that for a former CB who prizes defense, he certainly creates tactics that leave his CBs exposed a lot. That said, Richards was just not good. He needs to move in January to someplace where he plays. I hope Gregg looks at the first half and sees that the ability to knock the other guy back on his heels can be part of a good defense. When the attack is mostly one dimensional, all aerial crosses, we don’t do that.
When Germany was open and we could break we weren’t slowing it down for crosses. Our players can’t collectively combine their way through a well organized defense in a meaningfully repeatable way, without Gio carrying a large portion of that burden. Here’s a test for the entire class, what are the specific instructions you would use to get our players to create more “normal” run of play chance volume?
1) Don’t be so one dimensional pumping crosses. 2) Get Reyna in the half space on the the right. 3) Have Balogun make more back shoulder runs to create space vertically. 4) McKennie makes late runs when Pulisic and Weah get to the end line for cutbacks 5) Watch the video from the Nations League games and see what Callaghan did. I’ll take my “A” now, thanks.
The volume of crosses this team puts in when Berhalter is in charge is the most telling statistic relative to the team’s inability to create enough high danger chances. If we had prime Horst Hrubesch roaming the box (reference for any fellow “Soccer Made In Germany” fans out there) maybe that would work OK. But we don’t, and the conversion rate for all the crosses pumped in is laughable. It seems one of the most elemental and consistent flaws in Berhalter’s tactical approach yet while many supporters can consistently see it he cannot, or if he does, is hell bent on continuing to do it until it somehow magically works. Can we get just one analyst, journalist or commentator who follows this team to ask him why they are persisting in playing this way when it rarely…and I’m being charitable in even using the term “rarely”…ever works?
Soccer really isn’t as hard as some make it out to be. Just once, I’d like someone who covers the national team to ask this very basic question of Gregg Berhalter: “Why does your attack plan rely so heavily on crosses?” The Nations League games were by far the best this team has looked in attack. Why? They made a conscious effort to work the middle of the field. If a coach cannot look at video and figure out how to repeat that, I don’t know what to say.
Play more like Germany. One touch combinations around the box with multiple runners. Switch the field, particularly when under pressure, to create the kind of space in order to work those combinations. Basically, getting a cross in shouldn’t be the goal but instead an option. That’s my answer if that’s a sincere question. If it’s just a set up to be lectured, please just move on. I don’t think the US is as formidable in attack as they could be and definitely not as much as they have to become. I guess reasonable people can see a team that doesn’t need to improve drastically in that department but not me. I do believe getting to the end line for passes across the six can be very effective with runners crashing the box. What’s proven to be ineffective to me anyway is swinging in hopeful crosses to a somewhat shrimpy center forward alone amongst the trees. This is simplification but happens too often to think it’s not purposeful.
I'm only half-joking about this, but if the game plan is going to be heavily dependent on crosses then put McKennie up top. At least he's excellent in the air, and that would help alleviate some of the lineup issues in midfield if everyone is healthy.
I agree with the idea that if you want to take advantage of what the other teams are willing to give up since forever, which is that cross into the box, put more people in the box! At least give yourself a better chance at converting those chances. And for the love of all, make set pieces a priority. They stink at them, and in soccer these are great opportunities frittered away. It starts with consistent service into dangerous positions. Maybe start there instead of watching Pulisic fail to deliver those balls where they need to be.