Discussion in 'USA Men' started by bigredmachine, Oct 15, 2019.
He played Zimmermann, Acosta, Morris, and Ferreira more than he should.
So weird to see so many people, including Berhalter, making opinions about players without considering actual talent.
I was thinking that Doug Collins to Phil Jackson was a better analogy, but I don't know how many kids around here would have been able to follow that one. Obviously we don't have a transcendant star like Jordan was, but Doug Collins had the respect of Jordan and his Bulls teammates, took them as far as he could, then Phil got them over the top (obviously simplified version).
Probably a better comp.
The unintentional learning here might simply be that the players determine winning far more than the coach.
I also think there's probably a bit of a discussion here about where the US really is on the success curve, where the talent will be in 4 years, and what kind of coach suits that the best.
The Phil Jacksons and Steve Kerr's best genius was in getting really elite players to buy in to whatever they wanted to do. Both were helped greatly by having superstar players who were generally coachable, and with the exception of Phil's Lakers (where he couldn't keep it together) a clear hierarchy and focus.
Jackson managed to sell Jordan on the triangle offense and Tex Winter was his tactical genius. I can guarantee you that if we had an equivalent today, people would be screaming about how you can't shackle a player with such an inflexible system, blah, blah, blah. But the reality is once you grasp most systems like this, it provides a framework for a star to dominate within.
It's funny because while Collins ran a different system, the level of difference between the two simply might have been more man management than strictness in tactical work, Jordan maturing and developing ... and acquiring Scottie Pippen.
I'm rambling now, but I think the Collins' and the Larry Browns are better with underperforming teams for a short time. But I'd argue the Jacksons, Kerrs, Poppovich's biggest difference is not tactical but in their ability to manage elite talent effectively.
Doug Collins is a great Berhalter comparison. Great guy, players respect him and will work hard for him, knowledgeable about the game, also well suited to front office and media roles, will clean up a mess and get the trains running on time in a professional manner.
But if you want to be great you need to reach higher.
The NBA is pretty similar to international soccer in that you're only as good as your players and as a coach you're pretty helpless in terms of the major building blocks of who those players are going to be. But in both arenas a coach who doesn't have the juice is going to get exposed when the chips are down.
(Just to be a nerd one difference is that Collins developed a reputation for not liking young players, which isn't true of Gregg. Carry on.)
Usually I'd take a cheap shot at the pro/rel cargo cult here, but it isn't about pro/rel, any more than it was about the countdown clock.
If MLS introduced pro/rel, then it would be something else. If they got rid of playoffs, then it would be something else. If they changed the name of the league to MLF and fined any player, coach or fan who said the s-word, it would still be something else.
Meanwhile, since that apparently now-ancient and irrelevant goal against Algeria, MLS has more than doubled in size, each team bringing in grass-roots support that dwarfs any previous American soccer league. Something something grow the game something
It doesn't sound like you understand pro/rel either.
MLS fans always well ahead of where the league really is.
Who cares how much the league has grown. What is the percentage growth of Americans in MLS? For all this growth, they are still trying to sell fans on guys like Zimmerman, Acosta, Morris, etc. Maybe we will finally see some increase in the quality of American players in this league in a few years, but thise guys aren't it.
Please don't talk about MLS in terms of grass roots and forgoing the game. Everything they do is for a profit and assume they are making a huge profit off anything you would call grasss roots. Having a monopoly on the game creates some huge advantages in getting parents to give their money to you rather than anyone else.
Have you ever considered visiting a therapist?
Seems relevant to care about!
Why should I care they have 30 team league? You know the league would a tally be better if they got rid of all the teams that started before Seattle joined. At least then they wouldn't have people making fun of them claiming 3x the number of fans at RB Arena.
Anything useful to say about what I posted. Id love to hear that you thought our media was good and why? Are you disagreeing with someone who is challenging the notion that Berhalter integrated players who had already played plenty international games?
Since nothing seems that controversial id guess it is just defensive reaction because you don't actually like what is being said. That is probably 90% of the folks on here.
I understand how it works in Liga MX
It still doesn't sound like you do. That has done wonders for Mexican soccer. Them jumping in bed with SUM has really hurt the game down there.
Adding to this the comment by van Gaal in the press meeting before the Argentina clash:
"He added: "Argentina in my view is a top country with top players in their selection. The tournament is starting tomorrow for real, for us. Although I don't want to downplay the countries we've beaten, Argentina is a different country to the ones we have played."
For the top countries a WC starts with the last 8. Not getting there is a failure.
Your ridiculous Q/"conspiracy" reference pretty much closes the deal. You have ZERO credibility as a serious analyst of all things US Soccer.
Rather, all you can manage as argumentative counterpoint is some psycho-babble nonsense about anger. The reason why Soccer House is a joke is because a bunch of US fans are miserable. Thank you Clint Freud.
It’s true Argentina is an elite level team and we are not.
We aren’t where Argentina is yet, but that’s the goal obviously.
Because the EPL famously doesn’t care about profit or money at all.
I mean...maybe? Maybe you could argue Berhalter was pretty rigid in his selection criteria; sometimes maybe you just bring a guy who can fulfill a certain role, even if they're not in great club form or haven't had months to integrate with the team. That might be a fair criticism. Like, maybe bring Brooks if you don't have a lot of other CBs that can pass, even if he's not playing anywhere. Big risk, obviously.
I think just time. The biggest difference between the top leagues and MLS is the level of investment, in terms of money, time, human capital etc. etc. Anytime there are more resources involved, the stakes are much higher, which comes with a higher level of scrutiny.
It's not what you say, but the manner.
You assume we all are involved in some sort of conspiracy to promote MLS and we all (including the media) are paid stooges to support a certain plot.
Which is crazy. I don't even rank MLS as a Top 20 league in the world, in all my lineups for our NT I put our guys in Europe first, and I watch even those playing in Turkey or the Italian second division.
You need to come to terms that there are people who derive different conclusions using their own knowledge and logic. It's not all a conspiracy.
That mentality is ruining the Internet: now whatever you write some people are going to reply that you're getting paid by Russia or by China. You're causing harm to the world by having so little respect for others.
That's my hope. The Apple Deal, the Leagues Cup and the U22 Initiative are all pretty big swings and pretty major changes in the way the league works, all with an intent and design of taking another big step in pushing resources into the operation. If Messi happens that's another one.
But these things need to work, because the inability of the league to appeal to viewers as a broadcast product is really at a crisis point and without that improving it's going to become an increasing drag on the league's growth and progress.
Anyone who has bet against this league since the early aughts nadir has lost, though, and the bets on the league by the plutocratic sports business class keep getting bigger.
Actually, there are several indicators of MLS getting better. The metric most relevant to this discussion is the caliber of players developed and sold by the league has improved greatly. Here's a fun exercise: build a starting 11 of American players that've never been in an MLS academy or an MLS team that would make the round of 16.
Don't you want our best players in Europe? And aren't our best players in Europe? And won't that only continue given the dynamics of the global market?
If yes, yes and yes, the best Americans will not be highlighted/marketed in MLS for the most part. And if you're unhappy with the Morris/Acosta types, if they were a tier or two higher in quality they wouldn't be in MLS in all likelihood.
We're quickly trending towards any higher quality American getting bought by Euro clubs by 18-20 or heading over prior. I thought that's what you wanted. And that's the global market opening here to the states.
Or do you want the high level Americans in MLS at age 23, in which case the issue will be MLS isn't moving them on with the developmental curve? I would think if Reyna signed with NYCFC and was playing there at age 20 you would prefer he was a place like BVB...
What's gonna happen is the next wave of elite Americans will follow to Euro clubs as the current have, or they're already there and will break thru and the sheer numbers will push the Morris/Acosta types out of NT contention. And some will have connections to MLS, just as Adams, McKennie, Reyna, Aaronson do.
No MLS Academy Experience
Dest CCV Brooks Robinson
Musah Tillman Cardoso
Pulisic Pefok Sargent
MLS Academy Products
Yedlin Richards Ream Cannon
Adams McKennie Mihailovic
Aaronson Weah Reyna
Our three biggest talents are probably on the non-MLS team (or at least 3 of the 4), but I think the MLS team is better even if it has no left back.
The best argument for pro/rel which I have made before is geographical coverage. The issue that unlike all these tiny Euro countries (land mass) we have to cover almost an entire continent with our league. But pro/rel is unlikely to happen. And we won't use the NCAA system which feed the NBA/NFL.
In light of that, a league with 40+ teams actually makes sense. Bigger the better even if many end up being mediocre. Why? Want as much geographical coverage and opportunity as possible.
If you're a kid in Phoenix, Las Vegas, Boise, Detroit, Sacramento, Jacksonville, etc, you eventually want a team and academy to play in. Also a real flow between USL up to MLS and transfer fees and all that. Broaden the scope as much as possible.
Why do you guys always think this is some kind gotcha moment? It is such a stupid comment to make in the context of this discussion.
I simply asked for someone to not act like MLS is doing charity work at the grass roots level. They are fleecing families.
Let's break this into three categories... the top league, the rest of soccer, and the federation.
As you obviously point out, the EPL is out for themselves just like MLS. The owners of clubs in the EPL are required to compete on the field to stay in the league. Oddly enough, a bunch of Americans own teams in the league which supposedly they'd be afraid to because of the risk of relegation. Some MLS franchises care some dont. Those they don't are riding on the other owners and designed scarcity for profit.
England has a robust system below the top league. Many teams outside the top league are big clubs and owned by very wealthy people. It is kind of a mess here. A few different leagues competing either each other a very little reason to invest in a lower level league.
The federation is where it is really different. In the US, not really sure what they do. They don't care about fans and seem to let MLS do whatever they want. This includes them recently taking over youth soccer, which they will likely use to exert power over non-MLS clubs. The FA on the other side actually governs the game. The MLS is designed to be a super league. The FA came out immediately and made it clear they weren't going to let it happen.
The UK government and football’s authorities launched a furious counter-offensive on Monday against plans for a European Super League that threaten the entire structure of the club game.
The culture secretary, Oliver Dowden, supported by Downing Street, vowed to do “whatever it takes” to thwart the plans which feature 12 “founding members” including six leading clubs from England. European football’s governing body, Uefa, also threatened to ban any players involved from next year’s World Cup.
Prince William, the president of the Football Association, said he shared the concerns of fans and warned that the move by the breakaway clubs – Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur – “risked damaging the game we love”. In a rare invention he added: “Now, more than ever, we must protect the entire football community – from the top level to the grassroots – and the values of competition and fairness at its core.”
“It was a tone-deaf proposal, but the owners of those clubs won’t have been able to ignore the near universal roar of outrage from all parts of the football community over the past 24 hours,” said Dowden. “This is a sport where a team like Leicester City can ascend from League One to the Premier League title in under a decade, earning the right to go toe-to-toe against European heavyweights in the Champions League.
“Instead, a small handful of owners want to create a closed shop of elite clubs at the top of the game – a league based on wealth and brand recognition rather than upon merit. We will not stand by and watch football be cravenly stripped of the things that make millions across the country love it.”