Rebuild after Copa, 2 years before the big show

If Crocker doesn’t have to live in the U.S. I assume the manager doesn’t ether, correct?

 

That really would make sense. I know it's never a good environment when bosses aren't willing to do what they ask of those they manage. Of course, it also happens all the time

 

???

 

Unfortunately, it continues to get worse.

 

I like the Eleven Bravo lineups overall.

To me, Fossey meets the eye test and I want to see him with the USMNT a few more times. It’s just a hunch, but I think he has a lot of upside.

De La Torre is another interesting player. Depending on the coach and system, he might develop into a key player for us.

 

I would like to see whoever comes in try a more direct style of play that perhaps features some overlooked players like Zendejas, Vazquez and Cowell. I wouldn’t mind seeing more of Maliney either. I felt the team was just a little too dainty under Berhalter.

 

A coaching change is not a rebuild. What Berhalter introduced is very European and easy to understand. I don't get the grief here.

 

Positional play fundamentals are in like 75%-80% of offenses of teams that aren't straight out bunkering at this point. The devils in the details, of course, but a LOT of coaches will be able to walk in and build rather than tear down and restart.

 

Easy to understand? It didn't look like the players understood at all. He changed the focus of how they were going to play multiple times. I think we just saw what he was trying to do wasnt working. Are you suggesting they are going to hire someone else to implement Berhalter's philosophies?

 

I'm really looking forward to seeing what a different coach does with this team. I think a lot of our current assumptions about how we line up and the specifics of which players should be in certain roles may change under a different coach with a new approach. We've gotten really locked into a single framing for a lot of guys and the idea of a small number of specific roles on the field we must have at all times and playing from a pretty standard formation. This could easily change under a different coach. For example, Pulisic is specifically a left-wing for the US playing high on a 3-man front line. He may occasionally swing to the right during a game, but he is almost exclusively a left wing for the US. Yet, for his clubs he's often played on the right, and he's taken a few turns playing centrally as well. I'd really interested in getting Pulisic some time in a #10 role and like the idea of getting our best player the most involved as we can. I think that can happen with his playing centrally. Just ran across this article showing Leao at Milan saying he'd like to play with Pulisic at the 10 so I'm not alone thinking he'd be a good option to play centrally:

https://prosoccerwire.usatoday.com/2024/07/31/leao-prefer-pulisic-play-as-no-10-ac-milan/

When I think of rebuilding this team, I think about what players to keep, who to bring in and who needs to be less a factor, but also how do we want to deploy players in ways we haven't seen over the last few years.

 

After watching the Olympics, I'm excited to see how Yow develops. He's got that direct attacking mindset that feels rare amongst USA players. I'm very curious to see where his ceiling might be...

 

Breath of fresh air.
He is the type of bench spark we may need going forward. At least against CONCACAF competition at first.
Then as he grows and matures he may be even good against World Cup type of completion.

 

Young guys will definitely emerge but feels like the core group will be mostly the same under any coach. It’s more on the fringes where you may see new faces. A new coach could prefer Tolkin to Lund for instance, but the core guys are going to be the same.

 

A new coach will be be really interesting. Especially since, as all the scuttlebutt was about, Marsch was close to being hired. He's been a system coach and not a system we're recently been used to, so Crocker is likely not wedded to many of those assumptions himself.

Even before we get to something like what position should be put Pulisic at, we have to see:

• Do we hire a system coach?
  
• Where on the total talent spectrum does that coach see our pool? How capable do they think we are? And what effect does that have on broader style of play discussions?

We have a pool in transition -- a mix of skilled guys but we're not 30 deep in them. I think that makes some of the choices hard. We do have a number of versatile players (and we have moved them around more than people think) but we also have guys who have very specific skillsets and roles. Will a different coach be better at getting guys to alter their games as well?

While I'm all for seeing how a different coach sees different players -- I do think Berhalter locked some guys into very specific spots too quickly -- I think a lot of that is secondary to the basics of the attack. We did play Pulisic in different spots at times -- he was central early on, for example, but we very much stuck to the 5 in attack set up where we didn't do much positional interchange or overload.

The next coach might think more like you and pull us back quite a bit until more than half our players are at a skill level. Or he might exile some players we see as essential for not fitting what he wants to do -- for example, in certain set ups, Dest might find himself at winger ... or on the bench. If we go the other way -- push skills, we might see McKennie moved outside ... or benched. And Adams might end up as a bench player.

I'm not sure any of those are the right moves, but I think part of Berhalter's issue in the final year here was making sure to try and fit all the best players together but we ended up lacking identity and just compensated left and right instead of leaning in anywhere.

Reyna will the other fascinating person. Is he benched or not called in until he gets club time? A 10? A regista? A forward? He did all of those roles with Berhalter.

 

Hahaha... this is dumbest question I have seen on here for some time.

 

You may think the answer is obvious, but Marsch was almost the coach, and he stated publicly that he'd consider Reyna a bench option since he was not playing at his club. He would not be the only coach who would take this approach. Berhalter was actually more forgiving of guys not playing for their clubs than most. So, it may be a question that has a clear answer for some people, but for many, including some potential coaches, the answer is not so clear or may go in another direction.

For me, something I could really see changing is that sure on a pure skill level we can say the same 11 are the same 11, but most coaches don't care about having the most talented players all together and are looking at what they get from the whole. They may well decide we have a small number of key players who need to be on the field and fill around them with role players who are more suitable to the role than absolutely the best players. Happens all the time.

For example, if a coach does not play 3 up top, that probably sends Weah to the bench. We have a lot of midfielders getting time at solid clubs, the shape and style of the midfield will make a big difference who gets those spots. Some coaches might see Maloney starting regularly in the Bundesliga and consider that a safer bet than guys like Musah who play spot minutes and get moved around a lot or Adams with his injury record until he gets back on the field regularly. If a coach wants to play 3 center backs, that changes things significantly. McKennie is a guy who can be played in many roles and could be seen as a wide player based on his position at Juve. What does a new coach think about playing guys who don't play regularly would absolutely be a factor in who gets minutes, which could affect Reyna or Turner for a couple examples. If Tim Ream loses his place at Fulham does that mean a new coach moves on quickly? If he doesn't want the fullbacks bombing forward, is Dest still an inked in starter.

I don't know if any of these things will happen and probably more likely is a new guy comes in with his own ideas that I've not thought of that change some things around. But, none of those I threw out there are far from typical decisions we see all the time. And really, if we don't want anything to change, why change Berhalter at all? If we are looking to change things up and rebuild, just fiddling around the edges is only going to get you so far. Just saying, oh play the same lineup, same formation but tell Gio to push forward more or tell the team to play more quickly isn't going to be some earth-shattering revolution.

 

Really want to see Yow on the next senior roster. Paredes too.

Would like to see Cowell and Zendejas get another look at some point as well, both are playing well in Mexico.

 

I like the way Cowell plays and would like to see him too.
Zandejas though is not my cup of tea but hey, everyone may get a chance under a new manager. Bring in as many players as you can and see if they have a role in the new tactics.

 

Yes, it's not uncommon at all for national team coaches to set lines like "you must be playing at club" to be called up. I personally would call in Reyna, but there's plenty of national team coaches with this rule. As you mention, Marsch is apparently one.

Furthermore, since the zeitgeist around here seems to be that Berhalter was too soft on the guys and too many guys had guaranteed spots ... one would think this idea would be well supported. After all, what's the more indicative of not earning your spot than not playing at club and walking into the starting lineup?

But people don't want it done to their favorite players.

For much of the first cycle, Berhalter didn't seem to load up on the most talented alone, and the team did better. In the second cycle, we seemed to favor talent and potential, and the intensity and focus seemed to waver. There might just be a lesson there.

I don't know that there's an earth-shattering revolution here to be had and if we fired Berhalter looking for that, I think there's a very good chance everyone is disappointed.

A new coach may bring a lot of completely different ideas and I don't know if that will be good or bad.

But I think we can justify a change entirely on the backs of a change and improvement in focus and intensity. And I think there's very likely some smaller changes in terms of tactical details or choices that may improve things -- stuff that frankly it is hard to tell from the outside.

I don't know that we need massive changes, except maybe to go back to a more aggressive defense or in the focus and mindset.

If we make a massive leap in the next two years, I expect it to be via player development.

 

"Zendejas" was playing well until he got his leg broken.

 

IMO club play earns you a look with the national team, performing internationally is what keeps or loses your spot.

I'm 100% in agreement with not bringing new guys into the fold unless they're playing regularly at club level, but once you do earn a callup your place in the team should on what you do with the national team.

If a guy is playing regularly for his club, gets called in, impresses with the NT, and subsequently loses his spot at his club I don't have a problem with continuing to call him in as long as he continues to perform for the NT.

 

I’ve heard Zendejas has been playing well in Mexico recently, which is great. From what I’ve seen from him so far in Nats games, he’s really going to need to up his game to impress me.

From his time on the National team thus far, I’m dubious whether he’s got what it takes to contribute. I hope I’m wrong!