US versus Costa Rica 2-1-20: Post Game Thread(R)

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by Lloyd Heilbrunn, Feb 2, 2020.

  1. thedukeofsoccer

    thedukeofsoccer Member+

    Jul 11, 2004
    Wussconsin
    Club:
    AFC Ajax
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't think we can conclude anything from it given Berhalter has his favorites, Sean John was kind of one of them relative to ability, and Gregg ironically prioritizes skills at positions way more than he should - left-footedness and not being quick for an lb so they stay at home, passing over defense for a 6, etc.
     
  2. dougtee

    dougtee Member+

    Feb 7, 2007
    i watched the second half first and the first half second and wow were arriola, lletget, and zimmerman bad in the first half
     
  3. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    The kids have more upside and ironically probably fit this new BS system better too. We're trying to possess the ball. Who better than the technical U20s. Most of the competing veterans are lower skilled athletes or hustlers.

    The suggestion the kids aren't yet ready and past the A team relies on amnesia about what Weah Sargent Llanez Pomykal have done when allowed on the senior team field. Sargent has like 5 goals in 12 games. As of this past summer people were making these same "but we don't know" arguments. Even after he had 2 NT goals. It's fear of change dressed up as a claim to objective comparison. It's basically "I would rather lose with the devil I know than take a risk."

    Playing it safe is more justifiable for a team with more success. The very fact we could not win Gold Cup and that we got outplayed by mexico twice then canada should place in question the status quo. The risk of inaction has to be considered as well as the risk of novelty -- both upside and downside. Inaction is we will finish no better than second.

    I see no reason to risk 2022 when the 2026 people are already largely ready. this is not open ended, it's about 10 players I would immediately change. several U20s, reyna, green, wood, lichaj.
     
    Patrick167 repped this.
  4. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    one thing i don't like about conceding first place to mexico and then claiming "we're fine" by dismissing those results, is, we beat mexico in 2018. the quote-unquote "best team" doesn't necessarily win competitions. trinidad was not, on the balance, better than us in the hex. they still beat us one night. i once won a big tournament in our state on 3 straight PK shootouts. the theory that we cannot possibly beat mexico -- when we have this cycle -- departs from normal approaches to soccer. granted, my team won 2 state titles in club, but i never went into a game with them thinking we'd do anything but win. against that background i refuse to accept misfiring tactics and subpar selection "because mexico is just better," or "they will emerge in 2026." with GB at the helm i think they will be one foot on a banana peel again this time, though perhaps better equipped by emerging talent for the task. i think they will need all the tactical and selection help they can get. i think the mentality that we can't even so much as upset mexico and perhaps surprise in the table, is a loser mentality. since when have we ever written off cycles, put off swathes of emerging talent, conceded table position, and otherwise acted like a "manana" outfit???

    this should be top 2 in a walk -- fighting with mexico for the lead -- and capable of taking at least 4 points from mexico on a good pair, 6 points from the rest. we won't get that many, but we will go nowhere acting like beating canada on a tiebreak and losing twice to mexico is acceptable or leads to hex success.

    in fact, it bears reminding the US took 4 points off both Panama and Honduras last cycle, the teams that then finished ahead of us. what slipped was the ability to get much of any points from the top 2 -- the only point being in azteca -- and the killer instinct to take all 6 from trinidad. blowing off the mexico results of late doesn't help fix that problem.
     
  5. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    i mean, a team that could tie in azteca should have won at home. a team that wins once at home to mexico can do it again. if our approach now is we don't have to beat mexico and probably won't, and are giving a pass to those who failed to do so, then ol mcbride out hunting where the passion malaise is, should look in chicago first for culprits.
     
  6. Mahtzo1

    Mahtzo1 Member+

    Jan 15, 2007
    So Cal
    Bottom line, IMO, is that it depends upon the team and how they dole out minutes.

    If a team is giving minutes purely on merit, than fewer young players would be likely to play and those minutes mean more in terms of their current level. It may or may not be a good indicator of their potential.

    If they give minutes based, in large part, on their perception of the player's potential, it may or may not be a significant indicator of his current level but is primarily indicative of what they believe that player's upside is.

    Take Reya, for example, I haven't been watching his games but given that we know BVB plays young players and is willing to put them into positions where they may even cost the team points with the belief that it will benefit them in the long run (both on the field/standings and financially, I believe it is reasonable to say that BVB has an extremely high opinion of Reyna's potential upside but I don't know how they rate his current level other than I think they believe he is good enough to not be a significant downgrade over those ahead of him. That might put him anywhere from 3rd to 5th on the depth chart if current level were the only measure (to take a wild guess)

    (I hope this doesn't appear that I am criticizing Reyna's level in any way. BVB obviously has an extremely high level for a starting player....or even an occasional starter. to be 3rd or even 5th or 6th on the depth chart as a a 17 year old is amazing....the fact that BVB has the belief in him to invest valuable 1st team minutes in his development is even more amazing IMO.)
     
    tomásbernal and gogorath repped this.
  7. RalleeMonkey

    RalleeMonkey Member+

    Aug 30, 2004
    here
    I have 2 questions about the match - I didn't get to watch it.

    1) was that Costa Rica's A squad? Or, close to it?

    2) Was Jay's Brother persisting in his "we're going to pass the ball up, line by line, no matter how high the opponent is pressing us" "system"? I heard Jason Davis talking about Lletget not dropping back when CR was pressing Johnson. It's so depressing following the MNT. The keeper has the ball, the opponent is pressing high, pressing the keeper, and the keeper has to find some short pass to make?
     
    Footsatt repped this.
  8. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    #83 Pragidealist, Feb 3, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2020
    We should compete with Mexico with a solid chance to win. They did that in the GC. With some better finishing early, the likely do win. That's really all I would ask from a coach in his first year as he manages a generational transition. But that's me. (The friendly was a practice game and not useful for evaluating much of anything.)

    I expect them to overtake Mexico as they transition to the new generation. But as a first year baseline, reaching the gold cup final and competing closely with Mexico is fine.


    And let's not use that tie at Azteca for anything. It took a miracle goal and gave up possession 74% to 26%. They were lucky to tie that game. Let's not forget the qualifier game before that (at home) Us lost 1-2.

    In fact in all 6 Mexico vs USMNT finals since 1993- the US has only won once. 13 years ago.

    So yes- losing a close game in which they could have won by a score of 0-1 was minimally fine.
     
  9. lmorin

    lmorin Member+

    Mar 29, 2000
    New Hampshire
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I hear also that Jay is responsible for surreptitiously giving birth control pills to the women who should have borne outstanding soccer playing kids during the missing years, 1991-1994, and in 1996.
     
    Bite o' the Cherry and Pragidealist repped this.
  10. gogorath

    gogorath Member+

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    It was a veteran B squad. Most of the defense was from Nations League, but no Euros, of course, and a lot of MLS / Costa Rican league. Older, vet, but not the A squad.

    We actually played out of the back pretty well. Davis was probably referring to the one instance where there was a screw up -- Lletget didn't come quickly enough back for a pass and CR intercepted. Nothing came of it.

    In general, though, Costa Rica laid off pressing because we broke it fairly easily and were able to create some opportunities out of the press. They tried to extend the line early, and we went through it quickly. To the point where they bunkered about 20-30 minutes in. They extended once or twice in the second half as sort of a surprise, but in large part, the US went through it.

    Zimmerman was very aggressive in stepping forward and passing, which helped. But the bigger thing was that Lletget and Aaronson actually came back between the lines very effectively and were able to receive, turn and create some space. they functioned much more as 8s than 10s, with the wingers coming in to the half space and the fullbacks providing width.
     
  11. RalleeMonkey

    RalleeMonkey Member+

    Aug 30, 2004
    here
    Awesome summary. Thank you!
     
    gogorath repped this.
  12. Pegasus

    Pegasus Member+

    Apr 20, 1999
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It can go both ways. A lot of coaches won't play an obviously better younger player than one of his favored veterans or a high priced player who is fading. I've seen both in Dallas. Hyndman never played Ulloa (when the team was bad) but Pareja brought him back and he played a lot for him. Luchi played more youth last year then I've ever seen an MLS coach do but there seems to be more veteran signings this year so not sure he'll do it again (at least to that degree). I imagine owners have a big say in this. If you ponied out a bunch of money because your coach and GM told you to you might want that guy to play.
     
  13. y-lee-coyote

    y-lee-coyote Member+

    Dec 4, 2012
    Club:
    --other--
    I have read these four pages even though I did not watch the game. I used to love the USMNT, but I really can't stand it anymore. Bob Bradley made me mad at USSoccer, I kind of liked Sarachan and hung around seeing who might get hired. They hired a croney, who is serving shit and telling us we weren't educated enough to know this steaming pile of shit was going to be a great meal one day. Then I see MB on the pitch and I was done.

    All this talk of where to play Adams and it came about so we could put our "has been" CM on the pitch and play him 90. WTF, dude sux, the things he used to do well depended on a motor that could run forever, now it doesn't even start and if the motor does start it is really, really slow. We are going to take a guy who literally walked into a CL club in a top 4 league midseason, locked a starting spot down, and we were going to play him OOP for a worthless ********ing traffic cone MB.

    Bradley is past it and should not be getting a roster spot. Roldan, Trapp, Arriola, maybe as alternates, but I would attempt to avoid all three of those. Gyasi is not a soccer player. but he would be on my roster with the words hard worker, and useful at several spots written by his name.

    The conversation about MLS youth not translating to INTL level is curious since ALL MLS Best 11 seasoned vet does not necessarily translate to intl level either.

    I get the stated desires for playing possession based soccer, and I get that there will be a transition phase that might not always look pretty. I don't get why those that make decisions can't see that if the players being fielded are the best we have at that type of football then it will be counterproductive to winning games that count to attempt to play that style.

    If OTOH I looked at the pool and thought, damn it man we got really fast players in this pool, with a couple fast defenders. I would see what I can do with this really fast group of players and play to the strength of the pool.

    Sargent

    Morris Pulisic Dest
    Adams Weston

    Jedi Long Ziimerman Cannon

    This is fast and can play direct. (Not to be confused with hoof and hope)

    The beauty in this sort of pragmatism is that it does not preclude trying to establish some basis for possession, it just eliminates a bunch of complicated movement that requires multiple players to read and react together to move the ball forward. It looks rather ponderous and invites the other team onto us. Lather, rinse, repeat until one of our non-ball playing CBs. or our past his prime MF makes a stupid error and gifts a goal to the other side.

    Sorry for the long off topic rant, but I do still care for the USMNT, but the politics of it has ruined it for me. At least for now.
     
  14. Mahtzo1

    Mahtzo1 Member+

    Jan 15, 2007
    So Cal
    That's an interesting question.

    I think the "established" young guys will continue to get minutes...I assume you weren't referring to them in your statement but only the younger/not yet established players. . Cerrillo's role may be more up in the air. Pepi will probably be given an opportunity to show he deserves more minutes Defense may be a tough position to break into.

    My guess is that FCD is thinking this may be the year to put it all together with a core of quality players from last year (including the top hg players) and a few top imports. If so, the odds of Pomykal, or anyone else moving in the summer are very low imo. (the only option would be a sale in summer and a loan back to FCD for the rest of the season). Of course that begs the question: what if FCD gets close but doesn't win MLS cup? Do they try to keep everyone together one more year before selling?

    It's amazing to me that FCD's top 5 young players earned 8630 minutes combined last year.
     
  15. lmorin

    lmorin Member+

    Mar 29, 2000
    New Hampshire
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, I must say that while I do not agree with much of what you say, I do fully respect your right to rant (quote below) like a true fan, whether you recognize that you are or not !!

     
    y-lee-coyote and swedust repped this.
  16. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    you're missing my point on azteca. you think we were overmatched. and yet we got the first goal, led for a while, and got a road tie in mexico.

    my point here is we could be overmatched and still get results. if we remain close enough to mexico for upsets, it's just a matter of doing it twice. given that we took 4 points from honduras and panama, but just 3 from trinidad, nothing is taken for granted. any individual game doesn't have to track table position or FIFA rank.

    this is why they play the games. ergo i don't accept "losing a close game" is ok. it may be a fair result and not worth self flaggelation, but from an attitude and possibilities perspective, a team that wants to get better cannot show up for mexico thinking, "i just want to play well, they are good and so the result is beside the point." it needs to be, if i play well and execute the game plan we can win.

    i think that's (excuses) a loser attitude. as i said, and it may have gotten buried in caveats, i never went into a club game thinking, yeah, we're not winning this one. and if you believe it's possible and can win away quali last time with a lousy 5th place team, and home friendly in 2018, on "any given sunday" you could get your points and win first place. it may not be the high percentage scenario -- and your stats may hint at why -- but there is a reason they actually play the games.

    i bring this up in part because i feel like i have seen some "status quo defenses" founded on the idea that since mexico is just better we toss out the feedback from those games, and reconsider players who got shown up. when to me if our goal is competing at a high level i am far more concerned with who can handle canada away, mexico, england, brazil, italy, etc. than whether they can look decent against teams who might not make our hex. again, to me this is "punch down" thinking not "punch up." i want players who push this towards upsetting teams we're not supposed to beat, not ones whose limit is making trinidad look bad. i am convinced that part of our problem is the fed and fanboys "get off" a little too much on punch down blowouts and parading around resumes. i want regional first place and world cup qualification. until i get there anyone who i would make excuses for is expendable. even if it was mexico. because it was mexico. we aren't getting back to the mountaintop without figuring out which ones will pull us up to mexico.
     
  17. napper

    napper Member+

    Jan 14, 2014
    Fullerton
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Nice. :thumbsup:
     
    gogorath repped this.
  18. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    #93 juvechelsea, Feb 4, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2020
    people making such arguments tend to overstate the value of the status quo. which midfield starter from the last game do you think is better than him? is roldan? is mckennie, or should he be playing another position? was yueill really any good? trapp? he only needs to be better than 1 out of about 6-7 mids we call each time. and part of the calculus is not just well, is he upside or all the way there yet, it's how does he compare to the anonymous pile we have now. i have found our midfield unimpressive. i think the forwards are carrying the weight. it's a team with a roster. the question is can you beat out someone we call who plays a similar position. not whether in the abstract you are ready.

    you also probably get in the neighborhood of the dortmund mentality, that i want to bet on this up and comer with upside, even if the vet might be roughly as good. you then retreat back towards this loser, mid table, GB mentality we have, where we are scared of change even as the results are mediocre. i hear similar arguments about my dynamo when i suggest players. "but if we sell him the GM will sign someone even worse." "but we can't do better than will bruin, or at least i am not sure, so let's play it safe." then the next two forwards we sign after him set and then reset the club scoring record. it's risk aversion posing as objectivity. and that risk aversion is why you are too frightened to use a league-leader mentality.

    the risk averse are not championship mentalities. being too scared to make changes because of downside risk is a good way to sit still at a margin. my club team that won a lot was constantly scouting new people, bringing in tryout players as tournament filler. but what we did was be picky which ones became permanent.

    i don't understand this attitude on leading prospects like reyna and richards where we don't even call them because we're not sure. this is what friendlies are for. you call them. they show up looking ready or not. use science -- they played and this is how they looked -- as opposed to math guesses (analytics) or supposition (assume the worst, play it safe).

    this is the whole problem with this team is you could have a pile of prospects standing waiting and we'd still be like "i want to win every friendly" and then engage in this false circular logic that "my best chance to win today is to start the same people as last time." when to me an honest look at the odds would be more like the odds are higher we will lose if you recall roldan and other such guys, than "we lost because we took a chance on reyna in a game that doesn't even count." really? do you really think that's what's going to happen? based on llanez sargent mckennie etc. so far the odds look more like they will elevate the product not be the reason it loses. and we are not winning so much right now that the incumbents deserve some sort of competence or superiority presumption. quite a few regulars taking up roster room suck.

    and the thing is friendlies are costless to just kick the tires and see. not even friendlies. "friendly." they play one game 10 minutes, if they don't trip over their shoelaces they get 45-60 next time. if they look good, bingo. if they struggle, you tried. and you didn't assume because you are too scared to get out of bed or whatever. or worse assume that roldan must be better.
     
  19. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    I think we agree more than we disagree and where we disagree is more in the details.
     
  20. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    I agree almost completely with gogorath's description except the part about our creating opportunities out of the press or any other way. Biggest negative of the game for me was that while we had plenty of possession, most of it was on the perimeter and we seldom penetrated and actually created chances. We had maybe 2 clear chances and maybe a half chance or two from the run of play all game with both LLeget and Arriola missing with clear looks on goal. Otherwise, we created very little. Lots of that was due to Costa Rica dropping deep, but isn't that the test of creating from possession this team is supposed to be designed for? We played far too slow to get the defense moving enough to get behind them.If you want to play in a set offense, you have to be quick. You can't slow walk the ball down field and think you're going to carve out chances when the defense is set.

    Don't get me wrong I was overall pleased since we played with such a youthful squad who more than held their own and I am a proponent of the idea that winning is habit forming so the result was great to see. I just think the creating chances part was where the game fell flat.
     
    napper repped this.
  21. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    GB praises Hamid, saying he's experienced and did what we asked of him

    that is a lowwwww bar to hurdle

    how about limbo instead make it a contest
     
  22. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    actually, counter-intuitively, I would hit crosses in on a bunker and generally found trying to wall pass through a bunker with possession to be an exercise in futility.

    your other way through is catch them up on a counter in transition

    a team that wants to possess and build up is going to let them get back

    to me unless we have a team of such superior skill level we can string 30 passes and walk the ball into the net, it's dumb game-opener tactics

    keepaway is what you play to sit on a lead, or run around a tired opponent. as someone who liked to defend, unless you one touched and came at me, i am quite content for you to aimlessly fart around with the ball. that tends to preserve rather than dent my shell.
     
    Pragidealist repped this.
  23. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    Pretty much this. This is probably over simplified but move the defense and penetrate them when they move. You also can't blindly cross- that's what the US did in the past.

    What I found so exciting and fun was that the US consistently and throughout the game was able to move the defense and get penetration in different ways and places. Their final product was just lacking. In a competitive game that is more concerning but with so many youth - it's just fun and exciting.
     
    lmorin and Mahtzo1 repped this.
  24. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    I don't disagree tactically. I'm just pointing out that the whole Berhalter system has been sold as this possession system to disorganize the opponent and create chances. Well, if you want to create chances through possession and passing, you need to do it quickly. You're advocating route one balls into the box or hitting them on the break. Both of these methods, especially with the personnel the US has, make more sense to me, especially trying to break quickly whenever possible. But, that's not what this team is setting up to do from what I am hearing.
     
    y-lee-coyote and Patrick167 repped this.
  25. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    no, i do not agree that losing games is fine

    it's the wrong attitude if you want an upset

    and it also serves to block the sort of tactical and selection changes necessary to getting a different result next time. if you say, well, they are just better, and pat yourself on the back you started your best. i want the coach instead thinking, this is not acceptable, and where can i upgrade or take a look at someone? where was i exposed?

    part of the problem with the results obsession is as long as we get a tie or keep it close or whatever the criteria is, then players who actually contributed or were responsible for not getting a win, are instead deemed part of the team that "did well enough."

    example: yedlin. has cost us a list of wins. same backdoor glitch every time. at the end of the game when all he has to do is defend right for 5 more minutes then he can have a beer or soak or otherwise refresh. but since "wow we tied peru" he's back next time. when it should be, we should have beat them and he's the reason why not. a smart team would be shedding such people not baking them in the cake.

    and this also goes for the system. if the criteria becomes "worked on system" or a "tie or loss against that opponent was ok," then accountability to concrete results disappears and we can work on the system ad infinitum even if the results aren't there. if the results were instead the judge, then the system either gets us wins or not. if not, we look elsewhere and don't pretend one more camp of indoctrination and we'll turn the corner, i promise.
     

Share This Page