lmao. we'll see what he does. TBH this entire cycle due to COVID gave us 5-man substitutions and I honestly don't know if that's going to go away. This cycle is PERFECT for Jurgen, who made his best substitutions from 4 on lol.
I know you're joking, but we might as well comment on it. We had to give Klinsmann an early extension because club teams were trying to recruit him pre-WC14. So we were forced into a decision about extension or not. Then it wasn't so easy for us to fire him during the 2018 cycle, because the cost of the buy-out was substantial for the USSF. Berhalter does a lot well. Notably the players seem to enjoy playing for him, and he recruits extremely well. The proof will be in the pudding when the cycle is over.
The boys gave Greg a win that he did not deserve. They won Nations League despite Greg not because of!
I am a big Berhalter backer but, no. NT coaches should always be one cycle and done. No good has ever come in the second cycle. Not for Bruce, Bob or JK. It won't be good for Berhalter either.
I think it depends. If they prove themselves adaptable, learning from their mistakes, and to move on from "homers", but also humble enough to NOT affect roster decisions with ego trips (leaving Landon off WC 2014 squad?), then I can understand having a manager through multiple cycles.
Most successful coach we have ever had this quickly. May end up being the gold standard for coaches in US History.
I actually don't mind the 5 subs per game rule. It minimizes the role of sheer bad luck in deciding matches [the player injured after the 3rd sub. The player injured early in the match, and so effectively reducing the team to 2 subs...]
In some ways it leads to more strategy, as it allows coaches to better adjust to changes the opponent makes. On the other hand, it really hurts the smaller nations/clubs. Teams with more depth are naturally going to get an advantage by having two more subs available. In Concacaf this obviously works in Mexico and the USA's favor, and to some extent Canada now. In UEFA, France obviously is helped by having 5 subs. In Club play, the big clubs in leagues outside the US are getting an advantage. In MLS the 5 sub rule is helping player development, as it is giving more opportunities to young players. With a condensed schedule coaches are forced to go to their bench more now. The amount of minutes being given to teenagers in the past 2 seasons supports this.
That's a good argument; I actually like the increased element of chance/luck that it imposes. Also--the relative helplessness of the coaching staff to control what happens on the field once the game starts--relative to other team sports--is one of the things I love about soccer. More subs means more coaching/manager impact in the game.
I probably would not go all the way back to three. I would say you are allowed 2 in the first half. 2 in the second half. Then one if there is extra-time in knockouts.
That almost forces teams to make subs in the first half. I'm not sure I'd welcome the possible changes in the way the sport is played if that happened. But who knows? Maybe a shift towards playing a couple of more athletic/faster players in each half will change the tactics and game play in a good way. I'm leery of opening that gate, but I may be worried about nothing.
Actually, no. Let him coach through the 2022 WC... Then send him across the hall to rebuild the USWNT.
I do not see it as forcing teams. I see it as helping teams that get grueling injuries early on in a match or concussion protocols.
But teams always had the option to make an earlier sub if they needed to. By limiting subs by half, you're creating a "use it or lose it" situation. If a team decides NOT to use a first half sub, then they only get 2 subs for the rest of regulation time. Yes, you're allowing 4 subs overall rather than the traditional 3, but by splitting it by halves you're creating a VERY strong incentive to make first-half subs even if there are no injuries or concussions.
I was kind of joking. I do not mind the 5 sub rule and was just trying to make it divided into a silly way like FIFA likes to divide things in. I get your gripe and if they put it back to 3 then I will be okay with that as well. Maybe adding 2 in Extra-time instead of just a 4th like the last World Cup is the only thing I would change.
no way he should be extended. let the cycle play out and assess then. its not like the us would be in danger of losing him or something...there's literally nothing to gain by doing it prematurely.