We've gotten into this weird place where a lot of people are mad that our CBs aren't well suited for building out of the back but are also claiming our team isn't suited for pressing. The latter isn't true. I think the first thing is that people, including Berhalter, need to decide which of the two strategies we are going to pursue against teams that can/choose to pressure us. Because, to be clear, if a team chooses to sit back, we won't have a ton of issues building out of the back even with not great passers. Personally, I'd keep the press and play more direct. We could have done more of that even with that lineup on Friday, but we could make some simple adjustments to make it more productive even with our personnel. But I see a lot of people who seemingly both hate playing out of the back, but are also seemingly advocating for bringing in Ream and Brooks and playing out of the back but also playing a low block, compact defense to protect them. That would not be my plan. I'd rather play like we played through most of qualifying when we played well. Build out when you can, but be pragmatic. Lots of vertical movement. Use our speed on offense and defense. Create turnovers. Which would move us to keeping with the faster, more defensive CBs but changing some of our tactics, especially in the attack area.
Yes, for at least one game. But should that be the change? I would think from your prior posting, you'd far prefer to play direct than to play out of the back stringently. I'm curious to see how we play against Saudi Arabia, but while I wouldn't mind Ream on the roster at all -- especially if we carry 5 CBs, I don't know that we should ever try to play like we played on Friday even with Ream and Brooks.
I think we should be able to do some of both, really. Center backs still need to be able to play soccer a bit, but when we are not able to play out on the ground we should be able to pass longer. I agree there should be a mix, depending what is available. But, we were definitely looking primarily to play from the back against Japan and I'd argue if that's the plan then the center back picks were not fit for purpose. It's weird that so much talk focuses on the desire to play a high line and thus you need quicker center backs, but if you're also playing from the back, you need guys who can handle the ball. I think it's a legit argument that we don't have any center backs who are good in both measures, which for me calls into question the approach. As we saw against Japan, top teams will often not let us hold a high line anyway, so maybe passing should be more of a priority than quickness if we're facing a bunch of either or choices? If we want to go more direct and play more long balls we need to field a striker who can win one now and then or that isn't going to work so well either. Maybe some of the issue is down to not having guys who are really fully capable of meeting the expectation of being quick and athletic to play a high line and also being a good ball handler. From what I see, most of our center backs are strong in one or the other of those directions with Chris Richards being maybe the one who comes closest to being more well-rounded. We may be better served making the tough decision that we are going to play more long balls, field a striker who can bring some of them down and lean into that. Or if playing out of the back is a bigger priority, give up the high line and field more skillful guys.
I'd agree. I just don't know why we didn't have a more balanced approach for ball progression. I think that's the mistake more than committing hard to the build out approach and rolling out Ream and Brooks. (Although, as I mentioned, I think if we carry 5 CBs, I'd really look at bringing Ream.) I think we could have pressed effectively at time against Japan if we had managed to ever get the ball forward consistently. To other's point, while we aren't super made for over the top play, if we had either hit it to someone and played for the second ball or hit it long to the corners, both of those methods play in really, really well with a strong forward press. You don't need the initial ball to come to much; you can lose it and get it back. That's not to say you couldn't do it the other way as well -- sit back and then try to possess. But I think we fit better in the above. I think the problems were coming from the disconnect in gameplan and I'm a bit at a loss for the why -- this was a surprisingly odd turn back to didactic out of the back that we haven't see since 2019, so was this planned? A stress test? A reaction to the press that went wrong? But as you note, that gameplan Friday and the personnel didn't fit. Aside from Dest, the backline and midfield aren't the greatest collection of ball progressors, even if we did get relative shockers from Wes and de la Torre, on whom a large portion of the work was likely supposed to fall. But the frontline didn't have field stretchers but also largely didn't come back to help. And the frontline basically ignored a lot of lessons that we seemingly had previously learned that had Weah, Arriola and other vertical players getting PT. If it was a test to see if players like Long, de la Torre, Vines, Ferreira, etc. could execute in a hardcore stress test, I'm not sure it was necessary. And the answer was largely no, which given the volume of guys who failed, is really a problem. Agree. Which is why I wanted to see Vazquez. I still think Berhalter is smarter than most of you do, and so I think we'll see some more size in Qatar (i.e. Pefok or other). And I think Sargent, Pepi and even Ferreira would have done something if we had tried. But this was worrisome because the only real scenario where I can see Berhalter's choices really working well together is if we just controlled the whole game. And that feels a drastic mis-estimation of Japan relative to us. The other lesson I hope we've learned -- this team is too young and too inexperienced to adapt on their own. They got hit in the mouth and crumbled -- Berhalter has to find a way to better prepare them or adjust in the moment. I can see he probably wanted to give them time, but they failed. We can't afford that in Qatar.
Was the perception of McKenzie's performance worse than the reality based on one or two bad plays... in any case he was certainly better than Long. I thought Mark McKenzie came on v. Japan and raised the level for #USMNT. This pinged ball into space v Japan’s high line was on all match but Mark is the only one who picked the pass. His distribution + his natural leadership should earn him a start tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/pQVAwOCrDL— MLS Gone Wild ⭐️ (@MLSGoneWild) September 26, 2022 Completely agree here. Mark is much more comfortable on the ball and in doing things Gregg’s almighty “system” calls for. I really want to see Berhalter react quickly by noticing this, dropping Long and starting McKenzie tomorrow. https://t.co/jEQRoV90Vj— USMNT 🇺🇸 Thoughts (@USMNT_Thoughts) September 26, 2022
but all you have to do is listen to TSS or another source, and all they can think about are his what, two awful turnovers or whatever... People kind of see what they want to see I guess, but when I watch them both, I see a player that can grow in McKenzie and who has abilities Egg wants, and a player in Long that simply isn't up to this anymore, there's nothing to grow here, just regression since his injury. But Berhalter may choose comfort over sense (to me anyway).
Lot's of focus on the CBs, and rightfully, so but midfield is a massive problem as well. TA is a train wreck when he tries to advance the ball as a lone 6. He is tremendous when he has a partner that has complementary skills. Unfortunately, we do not have many capable passers of the ball that are going to lie deep in a double pivot. Gio isn't going to sit back there and hold Tyler's hand. We basically have Musah and LDLT that can be employed as shuttlers. Japan was above LDLT's level and I suspect that he may have problems in group stage also, for sure he will struggle with England. That leaves Musah who likely would have helped a ton against Japan just by the fact that he would have been able to athletically punk them. At some point though, say in knockouts if we are fortunate enough to get there, Musah isn't going to be able to dribble the opposing midfield. I guess the hope is that he can get us out of group stage. Kinda scary that your tactical system hinges on one 19yo player. WTF knows with Wes. You have to hope that he is in form and that he comes up with one of his moments of brilliance or two, but I'm not sure I want him sitting back in front of my CB pairing after what I saw the other day. I'm not sure he is a locked in every game starter for me now either. So I guess its pretty freaking obvious that it would help if you have at least one CB that can break lines and bypass MF. Hope Richards is ready and can handle the moment. It's pretty late in the game but I'd probably call in Miazga if I was Gregg and protect him the best you can if he plays. Run a double pivot. Seems the other option would be to bunker and counter, which may be our only option anyways against better competition at this point.
I agree with this. To date, McKenzie has been good for a couple of bad plays a game which is concerning but he is also good for some excellent passes, comfort on the ball, and just generally fitting Gregg's supposed profile. Long is good for all of those negative things without the positive. Between those two, it's a no brainer. I'd personally prefer to see McKenzie get the start and EPB come on at the half. Like it or not (and I do), Zimmerman is starting so finding a good partner for him in the absence of Miles Robinson and Chris Richards is of the utmost importance and Long ain't it.
Grasping at straws with the center backs here, but to me McKenzie is a better option than Long. This is dumb, but I'll say it anyway - he looks the part. I didn't like the careless turnovers against Japan, but otherwise he has the tools to be a decent partner for Zim. I think McKenzie deserves another shot to win the spot against Saudi Arabia, show that the carelessness was only first game jitters type stuff and that he can be solid. If he's still not reliable, I'm praying for Richards' health and the minor miracle he can hit the ground running in the WC. It's not a good scene.
I think the problems with McKenzie earlier in the cycle were similar. He would mostly look good but would have 1-2 moments in each appearance where he'd give the ball away in a terrible position. It's really hard to keep fielding a guy who keeps doing that. In many ways, he is very good and when he's not having those lapses looks every bit as good or better than our other options for he spot. He's got decent size, quickness and can handle the ball better than most of our center backs. But, he really needs to clean up his ay and leave those moments behind or they will always limit his success. That said, I'd take him right here and now over Long easily. At least when McKenzie gives it away, you can pint to it as a poor moment while Long just mishandles the ball regularly.
Tyler with Musah nearby, and either Gio or Aaronson at the lone 8. Then at least one of Richards/Brooks/McKenzie/Ream in the CB pairing. And we will be better. I like Dest’s and ARob’s defensive effort these days, and Scally is a stalwart defender as a sub on either side. With dual 6s (or an S shaped midfield where Yunus is a nearby outlet for Tyler, and helps with DM duties), and even just acceptably decent distribution from the back, we will be much better.
Yeah Joe Lowry is definitely super biased against McKenzie every single time they have brought up the center backs going back to even before the Mexico NL game. I think he's watching for what he wants to see and see the bad, (eg. turnovers, which has been a problem with him being so nonchalant on the ball going back to his Union days) and not the good.
I like a lot of Lowery's tactical analysis but I don't think he's very good at player evaluations. He's measured in his tactical discussion; his player evals tend to be more hype-based. He notices certain needed skillsets and executions in the tactics but basically just loves everyone who can dribble otherwise. It's a weird dichotomy.
Yep. I particularly like Graham's takes simply because he a) isn't American so doesn't come with the hype component and b) had watched a lot of soccer outside of the USMNT. I think it's hard for most of the other folks in the space to maintain any kind of objectivity since they are generally pretty hard core fans.
I miss Grove, loved that guy, never liked the show as much as Scuffed or In Soccer We Trust (where they're critical as hell and also, oddly, unafraid of burning bridges), but with Grove it was quite fun, w/o, it's still reasonably good, but not certainly at the same level, to me anyway. There's only one Daryl Grove. Lowery was also pompous as hell this weekend on twitter for no good reason I could think of. Just bizarre. He's a guy on a podcast, maybe something else too, but arguments are either strong, weak or inbetween, what you do does not determine the quality of your arguments, it's your reasoning and evidence that does, Lowery needs to remember that.
Yeah, that was bad. Shame we don't have a couple experienced center backs we could call on when things go wrong and we're down to these options.
Oh, I suspect we will see Tim Ream called up in November. Deservedly so, but note there's a reason he has been toiling in the Championship (although now captaining the #6 team in the Prem . . . ). He's a good player but he's not a top level international. Asking him to come far up the field and leave space behind him will have brutal outcomes.
Glad to see McKenzie get another look, pity he passed his second chance to the Saudi’s. Worst still, he made Long look capable by comparison. Nm with McKenzie, can’t trust him not to give the ball away carelessly.
I think we will see Wales and Iran bunker against us so we will need to switch field around quickly; I m in for Tim Ream/Brooks partnering with Zimm; Against England, it doesn matter.
It cant be Long or McKenzie. It cant. Biggest winnter has to be Tim Ream. I know thats who I start next to Zimmerman int he world cup and dont think twice about it. Richards number three, hopefully Sands number 4/5. Man we are going to miss not having Miles Robinson......
The four CBs I'm going with for the World Cup roster: 1. Richards (moves up by default) 2. Zimmerman (moves down slightly) 3. Ream (moves up by default) 4. EPB (moves up by default) No Long, McKenzie, CCV, Sands for me... at this point I would take John Brooks who has played like 1 minute in the last half-year over any of them.