I think most MNT fans are spoiled by decades of being the team just coming off a World Cup run to the round of 16 and are fairly clueless about how to handle a team in the wilderness. A successful team with most of its core back can be a little clubby -- though sometimes when the team got old we were still too clubby. You have a winning formula and the players to execute it. Maybe a guy or two ages out and you promote their sub and look for a bench kid. You play around the edges and make slow changes. We just missed Russia and then graduated several players on age grounds. Double hit. Many of the players like Nagbe who should have been next up were either not loyal or not good enough, which is why we didn't qualify. This leaves a potential vacuum. The instinct of many, that I see, is to turn to the remaining old guard, Brooks, Nagbe, Bradley, etc. But if they were that good we would be a qualified team looking to repeat. We're not. Moving forward is either you acknowledge that and either drop or pressurize with accountability those players, or we repeat 2018. To me I am at a loss because the generations coming up later have the more talented players we have fewer excuses to make for. But given history people keep wanting to give the O-25s who already burned us another shot, because historically that's how we've done it. We are not equipped right for being in the USA 1990 position, or the position that teams like Honduras and Panama live in every cycle. You know, having to fight for it to make it once a decade. You do that and you can't delude yourself about what you have, and you try anything to change your status.
I don't see a chance in heck that by the time we hit qualifying with A team rosters teams will be letting us try this crap of whacking a diagonal to volley-cross back in. The wingbacks will win those balls, or the CBs will be in position. More to the point, if this is going to be basically skipping straight to the Hex then you need big boy tactics. There is no point in coming up with schemes to beat Guatemala and Trinidad if odds are we won't play them outside of Gold Cup or LoN. We need Hex tactics. Hex tactics is stuff for Mexico that can work when people are being tripped every 5 seconds. I continue to believe that we are adapting our way backwards in Concacaf. In Concacaf it needs to be fast and well-finished and then the defense needs to hold up. And we need to assume we will be fouled and not that we are playing for a pretty but lightly defended 6-4 win in Holland on a weekend. I was brought up playing English and Italian style stuck-in soccer and am always amused watching us imitate the Dutch instead. And if that's how we really want to play we need to be light speed faster on the ball than we are. The ball is gone before they can hack, or they get a card for being late. Over and over. Because what gives brute force tactics fits is speedy one-touch ball at tempo. But we don't actually play that fast. If you want to play that way go get the technical and fast players to do it. If you can. If they exist. The idea Berhalter has the people to knock it around in his roster is funny.
Brooks is only 26 for crying out loud. He is not old by any stretch nor will he be come 2022. Now again you don't like him but who do you think is a better CB we should be looking at?
I'll try to be clear in my answer, because I think we are talking past each other a bit here. 1. The reason why I asked for like for like was for clarity on what you were trying to say on my end. I see a lot of people post "why weren't these 25 players called in" without acknowledging that you aren't going to call in 50 players. One good example of why I asked for this is that you've pulled out both DMs on the roster and one of the guys who could do it in a pinch. There's not a single DM on your entire 25-man list of people you'd like to see -- and not really a standard box to box type, either. The reason I point that out is not to play gotcha, but to point out that there are very real, practical considerations to roster choices that a listing ignores. Which is why I ask for what your roster would be. Berhalter has to make those kinds of choices -- it's not right to criticize by presenting impractical options. 2. I do think I understand your bigger picture philosphy, so to speak, which, correct me if I wrong is: for the places in the roster where the players don't measure up, we are uncertain about it, we should be trying as many players as possible. A corrollary from other discussions: you can't evaluate players well enough from club play to substantially narrow down this field. That you can't just say that Laursen isn't better than Cannon -- you have to call them in to see it. And another: personnel greatly outweighs system or team cohesion. Am I right? I think you're wrong on most of those points. I think coaches can narrow down options pretty easily from club play, though there is a certain level that needs to be seen internationally. I think cohesion in the system means quite a bit, and outweighs second or third string choices between players with relatively equal talent. And I think it's largely a waste of time to bring in a 27-year old RB when I have options I already like better. I think doing so hurts the team way more than the chance Ryan Laursen is better than Cannon, Dest and Lima. But this is something we'll just have to disagree on. I'm curious if you know of a national team coach that actually did this -- because Sarachan didn't. My questions to you: Can you effectively evaluate a player who has had three days of camp with other players who have never played in the system either? How many new people is too many to the point that you can't tell if the player will be effective in the future? How many games do these players get? Is it one and done? 3. I'm not sure you are even following your own philsophy. A think a lot of your criticism has to do with who YOU think is not good -- though you deny Berhalter any ability to say that a player is not good enough to warrant a call-up. Why does Alfredo Morales not get a chance? He's been called up less recently than juvechelsea fav Julian Green, plays a bigger position of need, plays in a tougher league, and has never played for Berhalter. I don't get why Green needs a chance but Morales shouldn't get his. It can't be age -- you are calling in Eric Lichaj. Similarly, in other posts you've detailed how you wouldn't call up Dest. Why doesn't Dest get a chance? You're digging into Ryan Laursen and Desevio Payne in our outside back pool, but you're anti-Dest based on one game in a U20 WC. 4. Let me dissect your list and you'll see why I asked for who plays in place of whom. You've made a really long list -- 25 people long. Except... 6 of them are strikers and Sabbi is also listed (who's been playing winger, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt). Your list looks long .. but it's a little shorter once you account for the fact that 1/4 of them play the same potential postion. Still we have three callups, we could try to call up all six. Efrain, Kik and Sibatcheu all play for other nations and would require a switch. Those three have given no indication they want to play for the US. But yes, let's bash Berhalter there. Also: Ryan Laursen would require a one time switch, but I doubt the Danish FA would care. Would Sabadnovic? I dunno. I don't know who he is. 7 of these are called in (4), would have been called into a camp (Weah) or have been called in before (Holmes, Amon). These last three are all hurt or recovering. Strip all that out and you have a much shorter list. And some of those conflict with current callups. I get that you are mad Julian Green isn't called in, but Lleget and Pomykal took his spot. Both better options to try out IMO. You've built this up as some massive philosophical miss, and it's not. 1. He's not afraid of youth. He's playing and calling in a ton of it. Your selections have some youth and some old, and so do his. He's just not likely to call in U19 players except in some extreme circumstances. 2. He definitely wants more team cohesion than you do. But that's probably because he actually needs to coach the team in a short time frame. But I'm still struggling to see the massive issue. It's less to do with philosophy and more to do with you rating Julian Green over Paxton Pomykal or Ryan Laursen over Sergino Dest or Reggie Cannon.
What would it hurt? Aside from the GK, where it's different, it's about opportunity cost, time to teach and integrate, and overall team cohesion. 1. In all of these cases, we've brought in a possible replacement (JG, SD, AM, JS) 2. It's a VERY short camp. Having a Trapp or a Zardes there helps teach the other players where to be and how to interact. Zardes can better teach Sargent what to do -- Soto and Sargent would need constant instruction. 3. When the game comes, if one of the players has not been up to snuff in camp, you at least have someone that can play at a level that the match doesn't lose meaning. If Sabandnovic isn't anywhere near international level -- and he's in the Bosnian league, so he's probably not, you aren't stuck playing him against Uruguay. Why does that matter? What can you learn about tactical choices or other player evaluation when someone is so bad they screw everything up. All of this is sliding scale, of course. And by that I mean that, sure, we could bring in one or two more guys. Or maybe not. But you are ranting like this roster isn't bringing in Sargent, Dest, Morales and Jesse Gonzalez. Miles Robinson and Paxton Pomykal are both still here as well. I just don't get the drama. Sure, I'd have loved to see Soto over Zardes, but I don't know that the end result (in terms of 2020) is actually better.
My disagreement with you isn't on experimenting. It's on a few things: 1. How much experimentation you can do at one time effectively 2. How much roster experimentation can affect other things like cohesion that effect winning 3. A complete lack of acknowledgement of the experimentation in this roster because you wanted different players 4. The weird idea that you can't eliminate ANYONE based on scouting them at the club level. Unless they are Sergino Dest. Or Alfredo Morales.
subtle roster points: why call 4 keepers for 2 games? why does he always seem to set it up where there is no actual chance that new keepers get to actually play? calling in Dest Robinson Cannon Lima Lovitz suggests Ream may be deployed (good or ill) as a center back, otherwise that's a ton of redundant wingbacks the call sheet almost seems intended to restore Brooks to starting without a serious challenge, no Miazga, for example, who looked better this summer similarly, far more "DM"s than he can actually use, and not that much offensive firepower at mid....basically Lletget.....continuing what he did at GC DMs in quotes because despite earnest-hustle-feeling selections he doesn't pick actual Jermaine Jones destroyers Baird makes no sense why does he have 3 RFs (Boyd Morris Baird) and only 1 LF? one could easily see a scenario where he screws Sargent by sticking him out there for game 2 with Baird and Morris for service, which with all the forward talent we have is kind of a travesty
You keep saying this and posiitoning your position as a youth movement, but then you propose players like Lichaj and Laursen and don't want to call in Dest. I would see a lot more cohesion if your call in list was just young players, but it's not.
Miazga is hurt. So maybe educate yourself before you criticize? Also, how do you imagine that the competition between Brooks and Miazga goes down? Is it a dance battle at midfield? Do they run in and out of the same game? Miazga has gotten a ton of time for Berhalter. The only way for Berhalter to compare Miazga to Brooks would be, you know, to give Brooks some time. Morales and Trapp. I suppose you mean McKennie and Roldan as DMs, so I think I get your point. I will point out McKennie had 2 goals and 2 assists in the GC in five matches. He's been a pretty offensive minded 8. Lleget, Pulisic and maybe Pomykal at the 10? Seems offensive enough with Weston at the 8. Who? Name a name. I wouldn't call him in, but it's worth noting he was a literal last minute replacement as two LWs bailed in the last couple of days. Why do all of you insist on creating worst case scenarios?
your inaccurate, insinuative broad brush rhetoric bores me and is easily disproven by my actual list (the version i annotated with helpful ages). attacking kids: E. Alvarez (17) (0) Mendez (18) (0) Sargent ** (19) (7) Pomykal ** (19) (0) Weah (19) (8) Soto (19) (0) Nova (22) (3) Siebatcheu (23) (0) Amon (20) (2) Sabadnovic (20) (0) Sabbi (21) (0) defending kids: Richards (19) (0) Pierie (19) (0) M. Robinson ** (22) (0) Moore (22) (5) Payne (23) (0) early career keeper: Gonzalez the GK ** (24) (0) mid-career attackers: Holmes (24) (1) Gall (24) (1) Green (24) (15) Wood (26) (45) mid/end-career defenders: Laursen (27) (0) Lichaj (30) (16) mid-career keeper: Frei (33) (0) (GK) end of career forward: AJ (28) (19) that heavily leans young. are you really suggesting otherwise? that's troll rubbish. this is really not complicated. one set is older players, mostly capped already, who I think should be playing. the other set, far larger, is mostly uncapped kids, or capped ones who showed promise. the idea that this youth heavy a list is undermined by including older players I also think can help, is rhetorical bs. my point is to improve the team. i think that is mostly a function of youth. but i am not choosing youth for age's sake. so if i would like to see someone older for practical purposes, this is an all star team, and i'll do what i want. bluntly, doesn't the "list" trump the "labels" anyway? the guys i listed play. my reasoning for the list doesn't. kind of like when a team takes the field the players play and not their club affiliations when they go back home. "Werder" doesn't show up and play the game for us. Nor does "Werder" matter when the whistle blows. What matters is what they look like individually. in fact, i see this with GB too. we don't talk names. you want to talk "system." abstractions rather than names.
one point you all seem to be glossing over is that i was pushing for trying new options, CB, wingback, DM, elsewhere. the game here is just to say "who else" and pretend there is no one. in a way, you have assumed your own conclusion without giving my option their trial. you then insinuate we have to settle because we can do no better, without knowing that for a fact. i've already answered your questions. for example, the DM terrier. my standing point there is only Adams consistently plays like a wrecking ball. to then say "who else" when I suggest trying someone other than the usual suspects is to miss the point. the whole silly game is to go around in circles among usual suspects and land on frustrating choices, and then claim your frustrating guy, known entity, is "safer" than my frustrating guy. i am saying get out of the loop. to then repeat the "settle"/"who else" rhetoric is basically saying the incumbent already has the job gift wrapped. cause you're basically saying we know everything from scouting and watching TV and don't even have to cap anyone else to try. that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, not a coach doing their job. my whole point is too much of the lineup or roster feels like the coach worked it out well ahead of time regardless of form or performance. i mean, if a club coach doesn't want to be fired and has a DM issue, he trades or signs people til he finds one. now, if he wants to get fired, he says, I am playing the hand dealt me. but with a national team pool at your disposal that would be idiotic. there always is someone else. if a whole set of people disappoints, you don't just pick them again. duh. fwiw, Holmes showed more bite than most of the conventional DM options. and i thought he was in there to attack. similarly, my point at CB was the lack of real competition. 3 specialist CBs called in, and from Long Zimmerman Brooks the starters are obvious. i get Miazga is out but that doesn't explain the tepid effort to call in CBs. i am in no mood to repeat the fatalistic approach of last cycle where we basically gave up looking at a list of positions and told ourselves we had as good of options as possible. this is how Omar ends up on the field. if you have any standards or imagination you keep looking.
What natural position would that be? For the USMNT Morales was played as a #6 in a 4-3-3, a #8 in a 4-1-2-1-2, and as a #6 in a 4-2-3-1. Those were exactly the same positions he primarily played for his then club squads (Herta and Ingolstadt). He did very occasionally play as a CAM for Ingolstadt while they were in BL2 and of course he started out as a RB at Herta. If you are talking about the position he has primarily played in his professional club career, I would say a LCM as part of a 3CMi set in a 4-3-X scheme.
You keep mentioning Sabadnovic, and yet no one seems to know who he is (and you don't even know his actual age). The internet tells me there's a 20 year old Bosnian named Halid Sabanovic, who has played for the Bosnia U-19 and -21 teams, that plays for a Sarajevo club (with 8 total appearances according to transfermarkt). EDIT: PLEASE TELL US WHO THIS SABADNOVIC CHARACTER IS
ive been assuming this was a "so-bad-foreign sounding name" jokey avater for bs' well known hipster love of anyone overseas and unknown...and im sticking with that.
I have not pretended there is no one. What I called out is that you called for a destroyer DM, but you neither had any DM on your list of call-ups nor called out a name there. Who's the destroyer DM you called in? You actually took time to remove Morales. That's not the point of asking for who to call in. Constant criticism of "we need to try something else" without naming specifics is frustrating for me because it ignores the reality of the pool. I think that's it is important to live within the actual constraints of the person who you are criticizing. You act like we can just whip up a better player. If there's a better option -- like maybe Alfredo Morales -- great. But there aren't always even options that *might* be better. If there is "always someone else," then why is it so hard to name them? And why would you object to Morales getting a chance if this is about experimentation. Has CB been an issue? We have two CBs that have not played under Berhalter called in this camp. At what point do you say a position is settled unless someone breaks out? Wasn't the only CB you had listed Kik Pierie -- who isn't going to play for the US? You keep going back to these vague pronouncements, but we are calling in a bunch of new guys. You act like we have the same lineup and no one is getting a chance. That's not true. It's just not the same guys you want, and it's not the whole roster. But we have called in new people at striker, outside back, CB, DM, GK and attacking mid.
Well, that's still up in the air. GGG would've called in 3 old players in Altidore, Michael Bradley, and Omar Gonzalez. Who knows who he would've left off, but there are at least 3 old guys that were not available because of their clubs. So it makes the roster a little less forward-thinking and youth-focused.
I get all the discussion about trying this player and that player with one exception. CB. We have several guys who have and are still performing well at that position and it needs some real strong cohesion. Yes Brooks was bad against CR. So freaking what. Every player who ever had more than a couple of caps has had a really bad match. For every bad play you can pick out I can just as easily find videos of great plays. Good grief certainly have lots of weaknesses right now and need to be trying different things. CB is not that way.....IMO of course.
I think I've got it all together. Our roster isn't good enough, so we need to try everyone. No stone unturned -- we can't rely on scouting and club performance here. You never know who might be the upgrade we need. Unless it's Alfredo Morales. Because we've seen him 11 times -- and sure, Julian Green and Eric Lichaj have more USMNT caps to some pretty mediocre at best results, but we need to experiment with them. Not Morales. Or Sergino Dest. Sure, he can swing between LB and RB, is starting big games for Ajax at 19 and was impressive with the U20s. We need to experiement, but once someone saw him miss a defensive assignment, so instead, we should experiment with 30 year old Eric Lichaj and a player that no one has really heard of and isn't even currently eligible for the US. Or John Brooks. I mean, he had a bad game or two in WCQ -- and he did -- so he's out. We should be calling in someone to compete with him. Miles Robinson doesn't count. It needs to be a dual national who's expressed no interest in the US! I find it hilarious that the coaching staff cannot exclude any candidate from scouting -- they must be called in AND play games -- but the same poster has no issue disqualifying someone like Dest based on a few plays. This isn't really a principle of experimentation -- it's about who you rate versus who Berhalter rates. If it was about experimentation, you'd be all for Morales and Dest. And you know what, that's fine. Just admit it. Admit that you think a random 27 year old in the Danish Superligaen is a better player now and in 2022 than Sergino Dest. Or that a 30 year old Eric Lichaj is. Hiding it behind things like "Berhalter doesn't play youth" or similar sentiments is pointless.
I personally think Omar is a toss-in, but I have no proof. You are right -- Bradley would be here and Altidore as well. Of course, I'd bet that Morales would be here and Trapp not. Morales ain't young, but I really don't think we'd be seeing Bradley / Trapp right now with both healthy. For all we know, GGG is angry because he had to call Trapp in as much as he didn't have Bradley. Perhaps I am pushing it too far there. I think the same is true with striker -- I think if Jozy was called in, Gyasi wouldn't have been. That's based on how Berhalter talks about Josh -- he's the future striker, etc. And he's said he wanted to call in Weah as well. We can go back and forth. But the reality is that he called in a decent number of new people and quite a few young people. Is it exactly who everyone wanted? Was it a housecleaning of players people don't like? No and no. But let's not act like we're rolling the same old lineup out there -- there are more than a few changes. And unlike some proposed changes, these changes actually have a decent chance to be upgrades.
From what I can tell, he has never actually played for AEK, having gone out on loan back to Bosnia-Herzegovina repeatedly. He would need to file a one time switch.
Thanks for this name. I looked him up---other than that transfermarkt has him listed as having a US passport, I still don't see what's relevant as far as the USMNT. That guy has played for the Bosnia U-17, 19 and 21s, and has zero minutes above the level of the Bosnian league. The Bosnian league. The Bosnian league (repeated for emphasis). I'm hoping that @juvechelsea can add information that isn't available to the rest of us.
He literally said that he would've called in MB, OG, and JA. There's no need to hash whether or not he would've used roster spots on them. Yes, he would've called in Weah, but otoh, that slot is open cause Arriola, our starting defensive winger, is unavailable. If GGG were truly looking for an MB replacement, then I'd rather he not lament TFC keeping MB. And I'd rather he not keep calling in clearly-not-good-enough Trapp. If MB wasn't good enough against Mexico (he wasn't), and if Trapp's not mid-CONCACAF-level (he isn't, he's fine against Caribbean minnows like Antigua), then why were both slated for this roster against Mexico and Uruguay, if 3G is building for the future? Why should I think the strikers would've been Jozy/Sarge? If anything, I should expect the opposite. Besides, you're saying that to me now, as a hopeful excuse, but if we got a JA/GZ pairing, you'd probably be arguing that 3G is just trying to get "continuity" at the position. Something like "3G has to play mediocre older guys to 'balance' the squad!" Everyone has their favorite youth prospects. In that regard, no roster will ever be perfect in terms of the youths given their shots to shine. But we all want youth to get chances. So 3G finally calling some of them up (particularly as many of them outperform his good 'ol boys, Zardes, Ream, Trapp, Bradley, OG, etc.) doesn't win a ton of points with this fanbase. Not after Cuova, and eventually, another Gold Cup slog ending in failure against Mexico B. It's a roster that didn't clean the dead weight, and indications were made that additional dead weight would've made it. That's far more important and concerning than which of the 2 dozen prospects he picked.
You can believe what you want. But it's a pretty common thing with coaches to be polite about call-ups. I don't worry about Omar because he's not going to be here forever and Berhalter has intimated as much. I said what I said about Trapp specifically about Trapp. I don't think Berhalter rates Bradley like you do (or for that matter, like I do) and think that even if Adams ends up being the DM (and I think he will), Bradley is going to play a role for a decent bit. But I do think he realizes that Trapp isn't ideal, and I do think he's willing to see if someone if better than both -- hence, Morales. He's said more than once that Sargent is the future of the striker position for the USMNT ... I personally think the writing is on the wall that he will get plenty of chances. ------------------------------------------------ But that's all interpretation. I'm more optimistic; you're more pessimistic. We'll see which way it goes. And I think there's a substantial subset of people who won't be happy unless the roster is exactly what they'd pick.