Pretty good. That was a very good team and it felt like we out handed them. Freese’s take on that late cross was tremendous. The back 3 seemed to really suit Ream. Whenever the play is near Ream I think, if he can get there, I know he’ll make the right play. But I worry that he’ll get there. On the first watch, Miles made some positioning/decision errors I thought.
This was the first match in a while where I felt like Ream was more of an asset than a liability. I'm not at all certain that I prefer the back 3 to the back 4 for us in all circumstances, but if we're going to roll with Ream, he should be 1/3 of the back instead of 1/2 of it. It definitely suits him better, and I'm ok with the others deferring a bit to him to get the ball forward. Richards is clearly the alpha dog in terms of defense. Of that there is no doubt. In general, I preferred Miles to McKenzie today slightly, although in my head at least, I've been picking McKenzie. But I'm not terribly sure about that.
Oh, I forgot to mention Freese, who his playing like a GK who knows that he's the first team GK. Overall it was an ok game, but his grab of that cross later in the second half, snuffing danger during that brief period after the goal and we'd made subs, when Ecuador began pushing forward for a few minutes asserting themselves, was really critical. In that moment they had numbers on us 3v2 and we looked cooked.
Overall I thought the defense was solid. Some specific comments: 1. Man I sure hope Ream doesn't age over the next 8 months. He is just so good with his passes. His defending is fine. And he just doesn't make mistakes. 2. Richards was fine. Got beat on the Ecuador goal but got to also give Ecuador some credit. That was a hell of a counter and finish. 3. Freese should have been a step further out and a step further right on that goal. But in the heat of the moment he just got beat. Not any kind of mistake at all. Just could have been better. BUT man oh man that coming out to cut off that cross around the 73 minutes was just stellar. Well done Matt!!! 4. I thought Robinson was fine and grew into the game. I have no problem with him starting at RCB.
I am an NYC fan and a Freese fan but I also thought he should have done better on the goal. His positioning didn’t seem great and that far post was absolutely gaping. I feel like we’ve seen Turner also get beat by similar plays and the best part is Freese didn’t seem to get in his head about the goal and did well thereafter - but while the job seems his to lose - he’s probably not going to make it to Mount Rushmore with Friedel, Keller and Howard.
freese is the best weve got (and im not sure that wont still be the case if turner gets his mojo back) so its really not worth talking about. richards is the only defender to feel good about (and despite any shortcomings on the play he simply got beat for a goal last night). miles was exactly as expected- i dont think hes any more than passable but he can play that role. mckenzie could play either side. i feel just as confident with ccv as i do miles. zim is probably our best option as the anchor cb, but we are using that slow/immobile/covering ground capital elsewhere. i dont know anything about campbell other than he didnt magically become a better player once he moved to the colaship, in the same way trusty didnt become worse cause celtic are...just dumb. i dont know what to say, those performances in the cl happened. blackmon is just under that passable line for me (like a latter day long). i personally think sands would slot in pretty level with mckenzie (above ccv/miles) but who knows? banks is the only guy i see giving us two clear above the line cbs (along with richards). its absolutely true how young, inexperienced, raw, every scary word you can think of he is. but heres the thing- if we are not only carrying but built around an immobile, defensive negative, aerial non-factor, far more deteriorated passer than anyone will admit (he cant even pass two lines anymore, ffs) what are we even talking about? banks upgrades ream in extremely important areas with no more question marks. but we are what we are, and we are gonna do what we are gonna do. if the retconned gregg opinions surprise you the hindsight on building around ream (and the support for it) is going to knock your socks off. like i said, we have what we have. freese/turner in goal. but our cb pool isnt nearly as dismal as people insist it is, and deciding to not only defend (no pun intended) but actively support pochs approach is asinine.
If a back-3 becomes a fixture, then Freeman could compete for the RCB spot. He'd looked good after subbing in for Miles. He added an ability to join the attack and looked comfortable when the team flexed to a back-4.
So Poch says this was a 4-2-3-1 so that means Miles was the RB not RCB although I'm sure he slid over when Arfsten attacked. This is a wrinkle that could be tactically related to what team we are playing. Obviously if Dest is playing that won't happed but Miles, Freeman and Scally can all do a decent job at the tweeter position. Jedi maybe can on the other side but perhaps dropping a d mid like Tessman would make more sense if both Jedi and Dest are healthy and starting. Good to have good backups so our players aren't run into the ground and for wrinkles for specific matchups.
A couple of coaches ago, DC United played with a back 3 and had Andy Najar as the RCB. But he also got forward in the attack like a fullback or libero. It was pretty effective. Freeman could do that.
I thought the defense was strong across the board. Miles, in particularly, was very good at applying pressure on the ball. Considering that the lack of pressure on ball led to both S. Korea goals, I think this is a big plus. I don't think it much matters to call it a 3 ATB or a 4 ATB, really. He's staying at home. In the build up, it's a 3 ATB, therefore, it's the same in defensive transition. In most of our defensive sets, it was a 4 ATB -- we defended mostly out of a 442 in the rare times Ecuador had the ball out of the counterpressing role. I saw Weah slip back once into a back 3/5, but mostly a 442. But we were so rarely defending post-transition. Ecuador had 34% possession but the vast majority of that was straight transition or that counterpressing back and forth.
It sure seems so. I would kind of like to know what transgression he made that was bad he's never been back. Golf cart? Really? It was that bad? Or is it something else?
It’s probably a combination of the golf cart + not being great. Like, a coach forgives his stars for things borderline guys like Scally get punished for. Half joking, half serious
It looked to me like we were playing four in the back. I think Miles is a better CB than RB, though, which is why some of the positioning looked janky.
Sorry, I don’t see it. I’d rather have Tolkin on the left, and maybe even Arfsten. On the right, I honestly prefer Freeman b/c of his athleticism (IMO more valuable for international play because the tactics are simpler) and ability to contribute in the attack. There’s more to being a good player than playing in Yurp.
If Scally was better at buildout from RCB in a three he would be a pretty perfect fit for the RB->RCB/Conservative RB role Poch has used throughout his USMNT tenure. This has been largely what we’ve been doing. Banks is probably a very strong fit for it as well but ideally he takes over at LCB.
I think Scally/Tolkin on the left is a tight one. I wouldn't be too upset about it either way. But Scally's versatility is part of the reason why he is so valuable and a must for the 23/26, in my opinion. Scally is more than competent going forward. Have you seen some of his recent performances with BMG? Also, he's shown more going forward with the USMNT than Freeman in my opinion. And spare me the "Yurp" bullshit. Your strawmen grow increasingly tiresome.
I'm not blaming Freese. But, perhaps the GK'ng coach? Wasn't Turner beaten from a similar angle vs Panama in the Nation's League?