Except we know that his minutes we affected by the fact that he sulked through practices and scrimmages. So yeah, he wasn't used as a super sub ... but his behavior clearly altered the minutes plan in some way. When it's reported that some players were unhappy he even played against England, you know it played a role. I don't know what his exact role would have been. I don't think he would have played against Iran unless we were tied or behind. He played a lot versus the Netherlands when we were behind. I suspect he'd have come on instead of Morris after Wales tied. I'm not shocked a more active and less petulant Aaronson took some of his minutes. Super sub is semantics -- there's no definition here worth arguing. It's pretty clear to me that he was intended to be as a sub, and for offensive reasons. Where he ranked versus Aaronson is unknown, I think, if he doesn't have the breakdown. People still would have been super unhappy with his minutes not because Berhalter hates Reyna or doesn't rate him, but because he's super conservative and doesn't love early subs and wouldn't have pushed for more goals in ANY of the group stage games. That may be a fault of Berhalter, but I don't think it would have had anything to do with Reyna. I think it is entirely believable that Reyna would be far more professional with Dortmund than the US in a similar discussion, for a variety of possible reasons. Hell, as he's said, he's learned and grown, right? One would hope he would not repeat the mistake just a month or two later.
The only person who could really dispute Gio's account of a private conversation between him and Gregg is Berhalter himself, and it seems like Gregg has probably had bigger things to worry about lately (like accusations of spousal abuse) than clarifying the exact amount of minutes that Reyna was set to receive -- especially since nobody's made a specific claim about what exactly was said, so there's nothing specifically to dispute.
Eh, it would support Gregg's claim the primary reason for Gio's meager role throughout the WC was him sulking because he just wasn't going to start the 1st match. And Gregg did acknowledge the part he told Gio this very early in camp, for whatever reason. You think Dortmund are doing that? Gregg could have made another public statement, or funneled it thru the likes of Carlisle and Boehm to write an article like most times.
I think you are giving far too much credit to Gio. I suspect he was told he wouldn't be a starter and would be an offensive sub. Perhaps that's very limited to Gio. Perhaps he exaggerated in his statement. Perhaps Berhalter told him he was behind Aaronson as well. We'll likely never know. I don't think any of those mean his reaction was correct. What I do know is this: the 53 minutes he got is the low end of what was intended unless you think not only did his behavior not cost him minutes but somehow raised them. And when we factor in that Reyna was a guaranteed starter before his injury, it's just tough for me to see this situation where Berhalter doesn't rate him. I don't really buy the long term feud over his son, either. We're always going to disagree here. I think Berhalter's professed style of honesty in management is absolutely the right way, and it has to work all directions. If you are going to be honest with the players, you can't suddenly start lying to them. You either trust them or you don't. Every other player on the team managed to handle the situation. We've already heard that Aaronson was pretty bummed not to start and play a lot -- but he didn't act that way. No one is doing Reyna any favors by lying to him because they don't think he can handle being a professional. --------------- But we're getting off topic here. Berhalter didn't play Reyna off the bench because he's magic off the bench. He played off the bench originally because Berhalter preferred other players for various reasons. Terdzic is doing the same thing, I am sure, and Reyna is doing well because he's good. Full stop. Maybe there's some light fitness stuff in there on either end. But at the same time, clearly it is ridiculous to say, ignore the Netherlands game, where he played a lot when we needed goals, or to say that his behavior did not affect his groups stage PT. That's just as ridiculous. -------------- We need a new coach.
I mean I agree with you that he probably told him something more than just that he wouldn't start one game to get a reaction like that. But I think it's also possible that he told Reyna he shouldn't expect to start in this tournament, unless something drastic changes, and Reyna interpreted that as a very limited role compared to what his role previously had been on the national team when he was healthy. Also I don't know if Gregg is funneling stories through Carlise and Boehm repeatedly -- they're normally reporting events that could come from other USMNT staff or US Soccer higher-ups. But even if that's true, I again still think he just has much larger things to worry about at this point that it probably isn't a high priority for him nit-picking Reyna's account here.
You are arguing for soccer reasons, but there was no any soccer reason to argue about it. On the paper, we are better than both Wales and Iran, but are weaker than both England and Holland. So in the theory, you will face two conservative teams and two aggressive teams. So you may want to have Weah to play against aggressive teams to do quick counter attack. And you may want to have Reyna to play against conservative teams to break down a packed defense. Right? But there is no such reason to consider. GGG only has a single mind with a single plan. But why waste time on some eggheads who will not show up in my national team picture?
I mean, we can debate all day the choices made. We did get through the group, and were only a bad mistake by Zimmerman from picking up 6 against Wales and Iran. But that's a tactical choice and debatable. It happens constantly in soccer. Some people portray that choice as so indefensible that the Reynas were right to do what they did.
and some people continue to insinuate gio lied about what he was told ("very limited role") and everyone else is just supposed accept that as the truth? some people think some other people should take their false premise and shove it directly up their ass.
I don't think Reyna is lying about considering the role Berhalter prepared for him to be very limited. But Reyna has not said he was quoting Berhalter directly, and I just genuinely don't know what Reyna considers to be a very limited role. He started every A team UMSNT game he was admittedly fully fit for prior to the World Cup, so if Berhalter made him believe that he was unlikely to start any games in the tournament, that could reasonably be viewed as a very limited role from his perspective. It's also possible Berhalter said you'll get 8 minutes in the group stage, in which case that would also clearly be a very limited role. In either case, I don't think anyone is lying there.
is it that hard to accept that gio used the phrase very limited role because thats what he was told? is there really a need to scrutinize that, or place some burden of proof on him? why would he make that up? its just an excuse to shit on gio, which people go out of their way to do now.
It's kind of a chicken or egg argument. If he hadn't had his tantrum, would he have come on during the Wales match? We will probably never know. The word is he was benched for the Wales game because of the incident and players were pissed that he even got 7 minutes vs. England. I honestly think he would have come on vs. Iran if not for the Pulisic and Sargent injuries. Sargent coming off I think pushed Gregg to go like for like and thus Haji Wright, who was a human traffic cone in his time on the field (therefore like for nothing). If Sargent was on, he could have afforded to bring Gio on, with Sargent's work rate and D. As it was we had no outlet for counters to keep Iran honest. Again - probably will never know. I hope Gio keeps scoring and stays healthy.
I left it out on purpose. Because I knew someone would respond like this. Gregg played Reyna for 7 minutes across 3 games, which some here claim is "super sub" not "very limited role"... It's disingenuous to point that out because... Gregg gave Reyna 45 minutes in the knockout game. Interesting, what 45 minutes were those? The second half after the US was already down 2-0 to Netherlands, and almost eliminated from the World Cup? Remember the second Netherlands goal came right before halftime. What was the win probability at that point, high enough that they could be considered meaningful minutes? Very different and not at all the same as Klinsmann bringing on Julian Green after the US was down 2-0 to Belgium also in a knockout game. After both games were all but decided, both coaches started thinking of the questions they would face after they were eliminated from the World Cup. Klinsmann would be asked "You brought Green over Donovan and then didn't play him?" Berhalter would be asked "You only played Reyna for 7 minutes?" Funny that Green mishit a goal to make the Belgium game seem closer than it was, while against Netherlands it was Wright with the fluke goal that made it seem closer than it was, until they scored a third. In any case, the game was already decided. Reyna got 7 minutes in games where the outcome wasn't already decided and the decision to play him wasn't being made in preparation for the post-WC inquest. Dortmund isn't bringing on Reyna to run out the clock in games where the outcome has already been determined. 20-30 minutes for Dortmund = "super sub" 7 minutes in 3 games for US = "very limited role" 45 minutes down 2-0 to Netherlands = "see Gregg did play Reyna" "disingenuous junk"
Make what up? I'm not accusing anyone of making anything up. Again, I believe Reyna understood his role to be very limited. And I'm not scrutinizing his belief there or shitting on Reyna. I think it's likely a reasonable belief. Again, there are a lot of different roles, above and beyond the 8 minutes total over 3 games that he actually received, that could fairly be characterized as very limited compared to the role Reyna had normally had on our team when he was fully fit. Or are you just asking why I'm not assuming that he's relaying a direct quote from Berhalter? I guess my answer is it didn't read that way to me, but I suppose it's possible. Though I still don't think that would answer the question of whether that limited role equates to the role he actually received once he started training poorly in response.
The best part of Reyna scoring goals right now is that it makes it harder to justify keeping a coach on the payroll that has a broken relationship with him. No player is greater than the team, but no manager is greater than a player that regularly scores goals.
Nah, you left it out because you thought it made your argument look stronger. Instead, it just ruins your credibility. Reyna played 45 minutes in the game we needed goals. The only game we really needed goals and the game in which we most needed goals. He didn't play at all in a game we were trying to defend as we had the lead and were through if we won. Totally conservative, and disagree all you want but it got the job done. It's pretty clear minutes were affected for AT LEAST the other two games by his behavior. Even in the England game, he did get minutes -- and not that many less than the first game here (where I think he had 21?). But obviously, his behavior affected those minutes. I didn't say super sub and I wouldn't say super sub, but honestly, I see no reason just to be honest about all the facts here.
On the other hand, if everything really is as damning as speculated about the Reynas actions behind the scenes at the World Cup and any problems among the players, then USSF may be tempted to bring back Berhalter no matter what to make a statement about team culture. Also, if the most prominent players in the US national team besides Reyna were signalling that bringing Berhalter back is unacceptable, then Berhalter's exit would have already been announced.
I doubt a single player relevant to the future of the USMNT is likely to choose Berhalter over Reyna if they have to. But I am sure there are some who are hoping that it will not come down to that as they would be happy to have both involved in the program.
Not all "game we needed goals" are the same, mister not-disingenuous... You're big on stats, what's the win probability for the US being down 2-0 to Netherlands at halftime? Or how about as a USMNT fan: What did YOU think their probability was of the US advancing to the next round at halftime (so pre-Gio)? I can tell you what I thought it was: low single digits. That is NOT GOOD.
We could have easily won the group. All three group matches were winnable but Berhalter went into the tournament planning to play for a single win in the group stage. It worked in that it got us out of the group. But the way we wore out our starters and had to kill ourselves in the third match in order to advance, we were always going to be in trouble against the Dutch.
No, it's not good, but it was a knock out game in the World Cup, so you don't punt it and save someone for tomorrow. We went down 2-0 just a few minutes before halftime, and then put in Reyna. I don't really get your point at all. It reads like you are trying to portray a World Cup knockout game as low leverage because of the score. As if Berhalter only put him in because it wasn't important.