We're not France so it's even more important to field our best players as Tyler Adams stated. If we have two elite (by USMNT standards) players whose games are incompatible, that's an issue but that's not what we have. Instead we have a coach who insists on playing midcareer non-elite (not an All-Star or Best XI) MLS players at important positions while often ignoring players who have earned multi-year careers at a higher level or rising youth abroad players. What's that got to do with France? It would be helpful if you went through France's team and show us that is a justification for playing Bradley, Trapp, Yueill, Lletget, Omar, Lovitz, Roldan as leading minute earners for the USMNT under Gregg? It would also be helpful to answer the questions you asked: How many youth players are on France's team? - Where do they play club ball? How many scrapper types playing for relegation battling BL teams do they have on their team? BTW, @Excellency is more than capable on handling his own arguments - you might learn a thing or two from him.
@Excellency adds a unique perspective to this board and does it without belittling other posters from what I’ve seen. As for the TA comment, I think we should make our best team. I have some personal favorite players that I’d like to see be involved in that, but if they aren’t part of the unit that plays the best, I can live with that.
McKennie, Adams, Brooks and Weah have been unavailable either through injury or because their clubs wouldn't release them. Altidore always seems to be injured or coming back from injury too. So there's five core players for whom there's no single obvious replacement.
The US could really do with official B team friendlies which were quite common in Europe in the 1980s. This would give the management a chance to blood domestic and younger players without wasting an important FIFA friendly window.
I wonder what lalas’ bigsoccer handle is....SMH but we have far too many people who believe this.... Would an MLS team be able to hold their own in a Premier League season? 🤔@AlexiLalas: "I think an MLS team could not just survive, but thrive." pic.twitter.com/G0JTqJWkqf— FOX Soccer (@FOXSoccer) June 12, 2020
I think MLS is between championship and B2. Pretty good bracket for our league and a reasonably good level. LigaMX is probably close to championship.
MLS is definitely above League One. This is the most basic reason why MLS teams would struggle. A MLS team is allowed about 6 players on more than maximum salary ($612,500). Norwich City, bottom of the EPL, have 13 players on more than the MLS maximum salary. So not only can they put out a better first xi, they also have the strength to cover a couple of key injuries, which MLS certainly doesn't.
I don't think anyone...other than Lalas knows what he believes. he says things for effect....not truth. He knows that saying an MLS team could thrive in the premier league will get people riled up. Job done.
It gets some people riled up. But it also bring MLS in for a lot of criticism. Fans of MLS can't defend the indefensible and then have to be subjected to the obvous retorts of other people responding to Lalas. In other words, it does nothing for MLS but make it look bad. Everytime MLS is compared to the EPL it is a loser. Lalas might be getting clicks for himself, but he is hurting the league.
I disagree. Why should anything that Lalas says be taken as some kind of official policy/statement or whatever. If someone cares enough about what Lalas says to get upset and respond, the simplest answer is to point out that Lalas just says things to generate attention and publicity. Point out that their response, indignation or whatever is exactly what Lalas was hoping for and move on. If it bothers them...so what? Several years ago, Lalas said that the Galaxy was a superclub and compared them to Barcelona (or words similar to that). Most people dismissed it as something that was stupid to say (at least if you assume he was serious) but I don't think it actually caused any harm. Galaxy survived that and MLS will survive this.
I don't get that urge to compare it to EPL or whatever top league and in the quantities you see it done. Is it some expression of inferiority complex? You hardly ever see people of Euro leagues compare them to other leagues. What's the use of it? In what way does it hurt the league, I don't get it.
How? It would be different if the owner of lets say FC Cincinnati asserts they are better than Chelsea or whatever or the guy in charge of mls is telling the press they are part of the global top 3.
He's just a commentator. I mean over the years I've lost count of how many times Premier League commentators have suggested in so many words that the Premier League is the only truly relevant league in the world. Doesn't make me hold anything against the actual clubs.
Unfortunately he painted himself as more than just a commentator. I wish they'd do a Wynalda and assign him to foreign leagues only.
Bradley is the most experienced player in the roster, Trapp and Yueill graduated through the NT youth system, Lovitz was given a lengthy tryout in a problem position, Roldan and Lletget are versatile players who can fit into GGG's system but I doubt would be WCQ starters and Omar sneaked into Berhalter's house and replaced his cremini mushrooms with the magic variety the day before the selection was announced.
lol on Omar. The question is how does France using a player who is best at a specifically identified skill that the coach deemed important relate to the USMNT choosing those guys? seems apples and oranges to me - and an over-reliance on being part of a system that failed in the Hex and whose youth teams were quite bad (in the years the players came through).
I don't know a lot about the French NT. I had to check to see if Diddy Deschamps was still the gaffer. I'm sure that they try out marginal players in non-competitive matches, just like any other team. But they have a much bigger choice of international class players. Occasionally you'll find a player who turns out to be better at international level than he does at club level. You'll also get international managers picking players who played for them at club level over more "deserving" players. Take Luther Blisset for example. I remember an England picking 7 Liverpool players against Switzerland, not because they were the best players in their position, but because he wanted to reproduce Liverpool's dominance at the club level. They were Clemence, Neal, Hughes, Kennedy, McDermott, Callaghan and Keegan. Callaghan hadn't made an England appearance since 1966 and Ray Kennedy wasn't a patch on West Ham's Trevor Brooking, who he replaced, but this was the 1970s and England were desperate.
Here's the way I think of it. If a person is already familiar with MLS and EPL, they will either agree or disagree with Lalas without having to do any research/viewing of games. Those people may or may not be part of the leagues fanbase but I don't see Lalas' words changing anything with them. For those that are not fans and are not familiar with MLS (they may or may not have an opinion on the likely level quality in MLS) they may or may not be familiar with Lalas. Either way, I think there are several possible results/reactions and my verdict on how it would affect MLS: 1. They ignore Lalas' words...either because they believe he is just some American loudmouth that doesn't deserve their attention or they ignore him because they really don't care. Verdict: Neutral. MLS doesn't gain fans, doesn't lose fans. Reputation remains constant. 2. Whether they know Lalas or not, his statement intrigues them and they decide to take a look at some MLS games. Possible reactions/results follow: a) They watch the games and decide Lalas is full of $H!^. Their previous negative opinion is confirmed. These fans will go back to their old ways of ignoring or denigrating MLS (whatever is their cup of tea). Verdict: Neutral (remember, these were not fans to begin with...they neither gained fans, nor lost fans and their opinions remained the same...reputation unchanged. b) They watch the games and decide Lalas is full of $H!^. Their previous negative opinion is confirmed and strengthened. Verdict: nano-negative. (remember, these weren't fans to begin with...MLS really didn't lose anything except a chance at increased prestige among people that weren't fans to begin with and wouldn't become fans if Lalas said nothing). c) They watch the games and decide Lalas is full of $H!^ but see that MLS has some redeeming qualities that they didn't expect. Verdict: slightly positive. While it is POSSIBLE that MLS may gain a few new fans, it isn't very likely that there will be many. Overall verdict: Neutral. If I was FORCED to make a binary choice, I would go with positive. In this case, I guess you could go with "no such thing as bad publicity".
I think you miss the part where the person reads or hears the commentary saying Lalas is a buffoon and MLS is like Single A baseball compared to the EPL in reaction to the tweet/statement.