based on that are you implying we should pursue Fuente or Southgate? of course we have the talent we have .... that is the starting point. just to clarify (IMHO): 1. Spain has a very effective system of play - along with great talent. 2. On paper England has even better talent - but their system of play was not superior to England's. seems to me that either of one of them (Fuente/Southgate) would be an upgrade to Berhalter, Dolo or Nancy.
Nope. Just pointing out that with respect to a senior national team head coaching position, de la Fuente's accomplishments at youth levels were more relevant, assuming the coach's primary remit will be to drive winning performances.
England has hired a series of shite managers since Alf Ramsey. What England manager has gone on to great success after the England job?
Some of those are the same universes where Bellingham misses his bicycle kick and Slovakia wins 1-0. US fans are suddenly deeply invested in the endeavor of discounting results based on dumb luck. Except for the Panama game, of course. Then the result is all that matters. It just turns up people's negativity bias and motivated reasoning. Folks claim not to care about process metrics or luck or anything but the result, until it suits their argument to care about those things. I try to be consistent. Process matters for prediction (so it's reasonable to ask if Southgate really added that much to England). Results matter for credibility (so it's reasonable to conclude Gregg couldn't continue, even if a bit of bad luck made the Copa flameout worse than it appeared). And a top-level coach is responsible to prepare a team for a high-variance environment, and reaps great personal rewards to shield him from the stupid unfairness of sports. So if Gregg didn't have a team ready to weather a red card against Panama, then he can accept the consequences and go count his money. But to pretend lucky breaks just don't exist or can't be intelligently brought into a conversation, except for conversations pertaining to Gareth Southgate, that's the inconsistent part.
I don't think that matters nearly as much as the idea that this tournament was a "building block that would provide legit tests for us," and that the tests weren't what was envisioned, but indeed they were still tests: *Hold a lead against Panama down a man, and collect the 3 points, failing that, hold out for the draw against Panama down a man for an hour plus. Grade: Failed and Failed (F) *Play a South American team in a do or die match, and advance." Grade: Failed (F) Generated 1 genuine chance in the first 75 minutes, played off the field, eventually beaten by a bogus goal, at which point Egg finally started to press for a goal, but the key detail: never put any pressure or concern in Uruguay's lap the entire game, period. Played for a draw in a game we needed to win. Watch what an inferior Canada did against Uruguay and against Argentina twice and it is night and day while the results were identical. Canada did generate chances, and in the Uruguay game, actually should have won, scoring multiple goals. That's the thing. I don't really care what happens with Panama 11 v 11. We already know we are way better than Panama 11 v 11 at home. What mattered was that game against an internationally irrelevant Concacrap side was playered in a context that mattered for once, quite heavily and where the outcome was in doubt, for once the game actually had genuine consequences and a flavor of risk, and we completely and totally failed the test, the second time we did so down a man since last November. That's what matters far more than what would have happened w/o the card because in the WC, we will not be playing Panama's, but we will be under duress like we were down a man. And, as I've mentioned, we totally failed said test, suggesting there is a problem of more than one game or one player being undisciplined because this has happened more than once, and we've failed to handle it more than once in just the previous 7 months alone. Not even across years. Twice in 3 full international windows. That's a HUGE indictment.
Southgate No: "England’s trump card coming into the tournament was boasting arguably the best player from the Premier League (Phil Foden), the Bundesliga (Harry Kane) and La Liga (Jude Bellingham). England weren’t short of star power. They were short of cohesion. It’s difficult to find a single collective concept England did well over the seven matches. Goalkeeper Jordan Pickford’s distribution was often very direct and when England did attempt to play out from the back, there were no obvious patterns. Their passing network from the final shows absolutely no interplay between the attackers, and also reveals that their most frequent passing combination was central defender John Stones playing it back to Pickford." How Spain ruthlessly exploited England’s lack of collective quality at Euro 2024 - The Athletic (nytimes.com)
Over the course of three games were out fouled 48-24. This shows a lack of aggressiveness. Gregg was late to make offensive charges when we needed a score let alone signalling the score of the other game. USA teams use to play with more heart and we somehow have lost that.
We outfouled our opponents 40-38 in the group stage of the WC, only game where we didnt lead in fouls was Iran (10-14)...wonder what that means. Is this a case of the team getting lazy, too comfortable in Egg 2, or just self-satisfied or something else? Not sure. I am aware that in those stats that suggested pressing and aggressiveness at the WC, we were quite good (if not turning possession into actual goal dangerous chances), but at the Copa America we seemed to play very, very soft. Its odd.
Is the luck England's or Southgate's? Because we for sure could use some in '26. With 12 groups of 4 and 8 third places also qualifying, getting out of group is pretty much guaranteed even with no coach. Playoffs become a matter of luck. Since you can get anyone as your first do-or-die rival. We get a lousy fit, a team that is relatively weak but always gives us trouble, like say Ireland or Poland, and we're goners at the first hurdle.
"Lucho, que ahí te dejaron un mensaje de los Estados Unidos, que te quieren de entrenador." "Ah. Who's their best player, Pablito?" "Pues el Kristjan Pulišić, el del Milan." "Ah. Tell them that maybe I'm going to think about it."
LOL yes I'm sure you're right... but which is most likely, in your mind? That's kind of the crucial point of the question. It's just so ********ing stupid to keep bringing up this loss, which defined their Copa more than anything else, and ignore the circumstances of the loss. Especially when the performance itself, and getting "grouped" as the grouped groupies love to keep bringing up, is categorized as a coaching failure. Gregg is already gone. He's not coming back. So at this point, everyone should be able to admit the impact of a red card on a squad that clearly does have SOME issues, with and without Gregg.
Primarily situational. Against Bolivia we were dominating the play and had no reason to commit fouls. Against Panama we were down a man and couldn't afford to get too aggressive. I will admit we could (and should) have been more aggressive against Uruguay though.
i wonder how- if we go with an "outside" hire- the new manager will approach the faux-dec and jan camps? i would think the gold cups are the highest priority since thats all there really is, but how relevant are the deep exploration camps that can only include the tail end of our pool? does pochettino really need to spend time on julian gressel?
I don't believe that any poster with a functioning frontal lobe will dismiss the impact of a RC, especially anyone who has actually played the game. The alternate history stuff is a waste of time; in an alternate timeline the 2002 squad does not get the breaks in the other 3rd round matches and does not get out of group. In an alternate timeline the 2009 squad does not get the breaks in the other 3rd round matches and does not get out of the group. In an alternate 2014 timeline Wondo buries the 0.63 xgG chance v Belgium and we make the QF. Getting grouped is a coaching failure.
Is winning games we "shouldn't win" the bar for this coaching hire to be a success? Specifically in the R16 or QF WC match?
IMO we looked about as strong as expected. Panama was a bit underrated by Elo at #39 at the start, and we were about right at #23. #23 with 10 at home vs. #30 = draw at best.
That's funny, because you JUST did it -- that's what it is when you push back on suggested impact of the red, and then appeal to the impossibility of omniscience since we can't possess some some multiverse-traversal crystal ball. That, when responding to a pretty straightfoward question not even posed to you, is what that looks like FYI. People have dismissed and minimized the red card since it happened, it's not hard to spot. If you missed it I don't know what to tell you... it's all over this board and these threads. And minimizing a red card, which has happened left and right, including by you, is a thinking failure.
I was listening to xm FC this morning with Tommy Smith and Rodney Marsh. Marsh said he'd love to see the USMNT pick it up. But then stated he's never seen a US Soccer press conference, how the media rarely gets to address USSF and ask questions and how that's so crazy. He said not accountable and not available, unlike most federations. It's very true and I'd never really thought much about it but he's right
I was thinking this just a few moments ago… I would argue that it’s still highly valuable but it may need to turn into a full time u23 / B team Camp. I’d add that there should be four different windows for these camps: (1) Jan/Feb (2) Mar/April, (3) July/Aug, and (4) Nov/Dec. Even if these games are against minnows of CONCACAF, it still offers time to introduce new players into the team. Example roster (assuming still we are playing a 433): GK Celentano, Schulte, Brady RB Jones, Harriel CB Zimmerman (CPT), Cobb CB Miles, Neal LB Tolkin, Norris (Wiley gone?) MF Sands, Edelman MF McGlynn, Bassett RM Luna, Tsakiris AM Mihailovic, Gutierrez LM Cremaschi, Esmir (Q. Sullivan) FW McGuire, Imasuen (probably could secure his release) You can tinker with that roster. But I would argue that those call ups still have value for the NT. It allows these players to meet the coach and staff and try to impress and receive feedback. If they do well, it puts pressure on the A team. It also allows us to experiment and try to figure out if we can find answers to problems. I think it’s even a good way to showcase some players to European clubs. Being able to sell that a player is a US international player, no matter how far down the pipeline, there is market value there. There’s a lot of value for potential dual nats. Luna, Esmir, Guti, Buck, etc. Not everyone will graduate to the A team. Maybe none. But if even one player is able to make the jump from the opportunity, it’s worth it, in my opinion. In other words, I don’t know why we wouldn’t do it. Who wouldn’t want more games? What else would the coaching staff be doing? What’s it going to harm?
Yeah, sorry, I was just saying that half-accidentally England ended up with a prominent figure in youth development then coaching some of the same players in the senior national team. Spain too.
Thinking failure. Sorry you are the one obsessed with with what unknown posters on the internet think of a RC. Really, that is where you are hanging your being? Do you really expect that everyone will have your highly subjective opinion of the actual impact of a red card? Grow up and stop acting like a toddler. We got a red card, did not beat Uruguay and got grouped. It happens.
I imagine it will be more of youth and dual national thing, plus the handful of guys in MLS like a Miles Robinson who are part of the A team. There’s definitely gaps on the roster that an up and coming MLS player could fill if they emerge in the next two years.