I don't think a road loss to an improving Canada is by definition something to freak out about. The way in which the US looked was problematic. If we had really been threatening for stretches and just missed our chances, and Canada converted, I think the reaction is different. Or if it was just a weak point or two that caused the loss. Instead, only one or two players looked good at all. Everyone looked bad. We had one or two threatening sequences.
Yes, there was a lot of over the top criticism, but there was lot of warranted criticism. He was poor in two out of three games. It doesnt matter how good he was in the one game. He still had a very bad tournament, especially for a team where the coach built the team around the him. The Confed Cup is probably the most over rated tournament. The team was crap for 6 out of 10 halves.
This is a fairly reasonable take on the situation. My objection is that many people want to ignore a great game. How many US players have ever had one great game at the Word Cup against a top 10 side?
"Problematic?" (He says in Iverson voice.) "Problematic?" This was losing to Canada after tying Uruguay after losing to Mexico twice after not looking awesome for most of Gold Cup after getting our heads kicked in by Venezuela and Jamaica right before the tournament. If we skip Camp Cupcake + March + Cuba, the conclusion to last year doesn't look much better. Genuinely curious what positives you are hanging your hat on to treat Canada like a pothole in a paved road and not like we are driving down a dirt road in a 1983 Yugo with the struts and shocks shot. Our last 5 games the only win was Cuba. "Over the top?" We have one win in five games against the top 7 in the region. I realize we have occasionally lost such games before, but usually against the background of a homefield fortress and some ability to win away. Is this the frog in the pot heating to boil that is used to these occasional losses but when they come more often can't see the bigger picture? Of those 5 games I listed, 4 were at home. We won 1. We then par for the course lost the road game. People seem to forget the haven't lost in 30+ years part and how anything implies slippage, and relative to even 1990 since we quit qualifying. In 1998 hex we beat Canada 3-0 home and 3-0 away. I have made routine comments that the back end of the Hex shuffles each time and the minnows swap around. I get this is better Canada than usual. However what I saw was a rather ordinary Canada team beating us for speed. Their mids and backs weren't that special. Moreover, I don't know if I have ever seen the team of fans this blase about this degree of mediocrity, inferiority to Mexico, losing to multiple minnow type teams. The influx of bs could nearly drown the gullible. To remind the excuse makers how this team historically did in the Qualifying Period: 1990 first round 1-0-1 (Jamaica) championship round 4-3-1 (loss to CR away) (Mexico suspended) 1998 semis 4-1-1 (loss to CR away) hex 4-5-1 (loss to CR away, 2 ties with Mexico) 2002 semis 3-2-1 (loss to CR away....anyone seeing the pattern?) hex 5-2-3 (losses to Mexico and CR away Honduras home [first home loss for a while] ) 2006 second round 2-0-0 (Grenada) semis 3-3-0 (no losses) hex 7-1-2 (Mexico and CR away [see the pattern again?]) 2010 second round 2-0-0 (Barbados) semis 5-0-1 (loss away TnT!!!) hex 6-2-2 (losses away CR and Mexico) 2014 third round 4-1-1 (loss Jamaica away) hex 7-1-2 (losses Honduras and CR away) 2018 fourth round 4-1-1 (loss Guatemala away) hex 3-3-4 (losses to CR TnT away Mexico CR home) the lessons here home losses are rare road losses are not usually much more than CR people seem to have CR and Mexico away confused on which one is the fortress historically I throw this out there because from 1990-2018 the pattern is pretty darned consistent, win home tie away lose to CR and maybe one other team away Even pretending like Canada away loss is a blowoff, is backsliding on what has historically been acceptable. Surely people grasp the incongruity of talking up their big club bullsh*t and how we have more players abroad than ever and how slick we want to be, and then in terms of results making excuses that wouldn't fly c. 1990 when this was a bunker team.
Going back to the non qualifying years 1938 withdrew 1954 group 12 (elim) 0-2-2 (2 losses Mexico away) 1958 first round (elim) 0-0-4 (losses Mexico Canada home and away) 1962 first round (elim) 0-1-1 (loss Mexico away) 1966 first round (elim) 1-2-1 (loss Mexico away) 1970 first round 3-0-1 (loss Canada away) semis (elim) 0-0-2 (losses Haiti home and away) 1974 group 1 (elim) 0-1-3 (losses Mexico home Mexico Canada away) 1978 NAm qualifying (elim) 1-2-2 (losses Canada Mexico away) 1982 qualifying (elim) 1-1-2 (losses Canada Mexico away) [so are we saying it's similarly ok now?] 1986 qualifying 1-0-1 (Neth. Antilles) first round (elim) 2-1-1 (CR beat us at home) (Canada advances, Mexico hosts) starting to see where tolerating away losses to Canada -- and just assuming a Mexico road loss -- is very bad? 1930 US lost in world cup semis 1934 final round 1-0-0 (beat Mexico neutral in Rome) lost to Italy at world cup 1950 group 9 (qualified) 1-1-2 (2 losses Mexico away) 1-0-2 at world cup with infamous england win (but Eng also lost to Spain and failed to make it from group shhhhhhh)
Italy was not a FIFA top 10 side at WC2006. I guess Bruce Arena is a Eurosnob? "He's sensitive," Arena says. "He often tries to overanalyze things. He doesn't have Michael Jordan DNA or Kobe Bryant DNA. Those guys know their job and compete every day. If it's not the best day, it's not the best day. But they're there, 100 percent mentally and physically. He wasn't always that way. In the last eight years, it's been a coin flip with what to expect from him." As Klinsmann was deciding his final roster, he contemplated all of this. Arena told Klinsmann he thought Donovan could help the U.S. In the past, he and former U.S. head coach Bob Bradley had given Donovan the benefit of the doubt, and in the Yanks' biggest moments, he would often deliver. But now, Donovan was admittedly a step slower, and Klinsmann was a different kind of coach. https://www.espn.com/soccer/club/name/660/blog/post/2181055/headline
Certainly a hidden fact, but there's no arguing that the Egypt Match, the Spain Match, and half the Brazil match were as good as any USMNT tournament performance ever, it's just a weird tournament because the math was basically like, what, 1 in 150 chance of us beating Egypt 3-0 and Brazil beating Italy 3-0 so we could go through? I'll take it. I'll be confused about what the heck happened, but I'll take it.
People are way, way, way underselling how bad this is. This is the worst single season of results/performances I've seen for the USMNT EVER, and I've been watching for nearly thirty years. Nothing is close, and the worst part is that he's doubled down on his camp cupcake+ core, and that predictably the teams performances have not gotten better but have indeed seemingly gotten worse is not being paid nearly enough heed. This year of USMNT internationals has more bad losses combined than ALL of 2001-2010. The one thing I'm taking solace in is the knowledge that the rumor mill is starting to bubbling up about internal discontent. That's usually the first bit of smoke that arises before a firing. The problem is, the lucky ------- has back to back cake games to indulge in the pretense that he's righted the ship, then he gets another bulshack camp cupcake to string together another result or two that's completely and totally fraudulent, just due to scheduling, he may survive what should be an auto-firing a week ago.
You seem to be getting caught on word choice. I'm not treating Canada like a pothole in a paved road. I've said that: Berhalter should be fired right now if he doesn't present a cohesive plan of changes Berhalter should be fired after Canada II if we don't win big and in an impressive manner I've long thought that our talent pool would be in ebb until the youngsters developed, and that trying to play this way would be hard. But we are going backwards and have now run out of time. All goals must be secondary to qualification. Who are you quoting here? It's not in the post you quoted and I'm too lazy to look back. We've lost to Mexico, the better team. And the Gold Cup game was close. We've beaten Jamaica, Curacao and Panama, all Hex-capable teams, and lost to Jamaica (friendly) and now Canada. We don't have a lot of games against decent teams in competitive environments, but I don't see the point of constantly including friendlies where our best players were sent home (Jamaica, for example). To my mind, Canada was bigger than a pothole in how we lost. There's a place where we still lost, but we looked to be improving, or Canada got a little lucky, and I could see still how the team was coming together. The loss against Canada for me was more about how helpless we looked than just a W/L. [quote[People seem to forget the haven't lost in 30+ years part and how anything implies slippage, and relative to even 1990 since we quit qualifying. In 1998 hex we beat Canada 3-0 home and 3-0 away.[/quote] This may be Canada's best team ever. We should still beat them, but no losses in 30 years says more about Canada than the US.
I agree on how the schedule COULD set up, although without sufficient system and personnel changes I am not sold we get the home Canada win necessary to stay alive. Even then you have to go nick 3-4 goals at Cuba away. I think people are very arrogant about how easy that would be. Last qualifying we lost and tied TnT away. 2014 we beat Antigua 2-1 and lost to Jamaica away. 2010 we beat Cuba 1-0 away and lost to TnT. 2006 we beat Grenada away 3-2, tied Jamaica away. 2002 we beat Barbados away 4-0. 2018 we did beat StV 6-0. But surely you see what I am getting at here. I don't like to jinx the team so I will just say I am uncomfortable. We looked bad in Canada and have to reverse that result, and then get a GF bushel from a road game. Ideally most of the damage would be done to Canada at home. Good luck with that. And then I agree with your scenario, he gets a light Qatar trip with a second choice team without expectations again, and then I would be even more uncomfortable for NL semis and the hex. To me if I am not impressed now why continue this farce. The idea is to be already winning games and looking bad a$$ where continuing this project into the hex seems wise. We aren't. And we're running out of games to not repeat the 2018 scenario of digging the hole before the change is prompted by the abyss. Your error margin then disappears. Your camp cupcake comment resonates, the fact he is kind of stuck back there and can't cut most of that group makes him a rube in terms of the job. Every coach we've had grasped that those games are trialist games, not real. I don't even understand how a coach that lost earns anyone's faith to turn his own mess around. I mean, this guy makes Sarachan look competent, and I thought all he grasped was selection. I think we have lost the plot in terms of coaching quality and personnel required to get the job done. I think we are also tolerating results that simply didn't happen during the Qualifying Era. Canada plus Cuba should have been a cupcake group. And the fact I thought he started better people for Cuba tells me he doesn't "get it." He doesn't see the MF issues, he doesn't see the LB problem, even CB is kind of meh. Same guys next time.
not sure what on earth you are getting at with "competitive" vs "friendly." his competition record would still be 1-0-2 with the only win in a weird interrupted Jamaica semi, and losses to Mexico and Canada. it's not like the results matrix flips around and i am hiding secret success. that is objectively what we have to work with in terms of how does this project into the hex. which should be the question now, is given more time does this look any better at a later date. the crap results against hex teams suggest we would be mincemeat. arrayed against that is blind faith. that i toss the two friendly losses to Jamaica and Mexico on top is gravy. and those were UGLY. as i said, canada has some nice forwards. but the goals were not unstoppable, nor did they appear at a mexico type talent level. they look "ok." most of the hex teams look "ok" and we then get our results. if you can't get "ok" team results don't waste my time on the rest. canada is literally as easy as it might get. sorry, we are watering down expectations. with the proper selection this should be a 10-12 points group and fairly comfortable, best canadian team in memory aside. as i pointed out, last time canada snuck into a hex (1998) we won 3-0 and 3-0. the worst part of this "don't panic" bs is this is like you are racing indycar and as one car after another passes you, you just tell yourself that's ok, don't freak out. by the time the last lead lap car is beating you, and you're not responding, you should be watching to see if you get lapped and they call in another driver to test drive your car, or say that you only race ovals or something. this is past concern. lldwl with the w from cuba gets anyone else canned. don't pretend and don't make us out into emotional basketcases. fwiw the part being lost in the disappearance of dos-a-cero is that meant we used to routinely win the home game and not in a squeaker. just like losing to a team that hasn't beat you in 30+ years. the results are eroding and the implications for qualifying are straightforward and not basketcase.
If we wind up finishing first in our Nations League group, I think you could be right, at least for the moment. This would require beating Canada at home and Cuba at a neutral site by at least a combined three goals, if my math is right. If that happens, he could very well be safe at least until the Nations League championship round, and the problem there is they've moved that from March into June, so now you're just a couple months from the start of the Hex, a time frame which makes it much less likely that he would be fired between the two. And obviously, those results shouldn't be a high bar to clear...in theory. However, if things are as bad as they looked the other day, Canada could come in here with the exact same game plan they had in Toronto and get at least a draw, which would secure their passage to the Nations League championship round. If that happens -- or if, in even more of a pratfall, we beat Canada by a goal and then go down to the Cayman Islands and can't beat Cuba by multiple goals on what's sure to be a cow pasture because we're militantly intent on playing the ball out of the back on a field where it's impossible to do that -- I think Berhalter is in very deep trouble. It was tough to find anybody of note who had anything remotely positive to say about the loss to Canada, and if you double that up in November by embarrassingly failing to get out of a group consisting of Canada and Cuba in a competitive tournament, it's gonna be very difficult for him to hang on (and for Jay to save him, if you subscribe to that line of thinking...which I admit that it's tough not to, at this point).
Landycakes was real, what kind of revisionist nonsense is this. I can't give you dates but I can vividly remember Mexico games lost when he got stripped or beat. There is a reason he would often become the withdrawn forward as opposed to a winger, despite having the requisite speed, endurance, and some technicality. Landon would win balls on errant passes or positioning. Landon wouldn't get stuck in. Landon was a tradeoff. You got goals and assists. You gave up some goals. it netted out positive so it continued, and often as far upfield as we could put him. Pulisic has more of a chip on his shoulder if he's nearby, but can be just as oblivious to what's happening in his wake. Comparison I would make would be to McKennie or Sargent running back 50 yards to the defensive line after losing a ball against Canada. Or Holmes losing the ball and then hounding the man who got it. I know CP has the fitness and speed to do it. I know he would even tackle someone unlike Landon. But I don't see it happen.
I had remembered the first half of the Egypt game being slow and incorrectly that it was still 0-0 at the half. However, Davies scored in the 21st minute. So make 50% of the halves. That is pretty typical of past US teams. Even in 2002, SKorea wasnt a good game and we were very poor against Poland.
https://www.stadionwelt.de/sw_stadi...s&folder=sites&site=bildergalerien&gal_id=706 that looks very short which can be either very good or very bad. the reality is with anything less than a home canada win it's academic, and you need a 4-5 goal difference margin over 2 games. i agree with whoever was saying that this might be practically as few as 3 goals in the sense that goals between us and canada boost our GD +1 while chiseling their GD -1, for a single goal but that also works in reverse if we allow goals.
US-Cuba 2016 in Havana was 2-0 on an international date coming off 6-0 at Gold Cup 2015. Goals Wondo 62' Green 71'. Lineup: Altidore/Wood/Pulisic/Bradley/Kljestan/Green/Yedlin/Brooks/Cameron/FJ/Horvath. Subs: Morris Arriola Williams Chandler Wondo Birnbaum. Not exactly the scrub team.
What was Italy's ranking after the cup? Arena Landcakes was a homosexual slur that I never participated in and was stupid then and stupid in retrospect. American fans nitpicking the best player to ever wear the colors, whewwww.
all i am saying is i don't remember many goals ever that resulted from dempsey screwing up. i remember a few landon goals. he was a great scorer but there was a tradeoff if he played wing. landycakes may be a comment on his toughness but it's intended as no more of a slur than camp cupcake is. he was soft on defense which stood out all the more because unlike say bradley now he was quite fit and fast. it's just his idea of defense was run next to his man, and not get goal side. ask a select coach whether they let they go even in kiddie soccer. he was special so he got away with it.
us vs canada home history 2010s 2016 camp cupcake 1-0 2013 camp cupcake 0-0 2012 friendly 0-0 2011 GC 2-0 another consideration to keep in mind is if we need either a canada result or cuba goals this has been mr. 2/3 dms at mid and mr. lovitz n roldan subs.
Landycakes came right around the Johnny Cakes episode of the Sopranos IIRC. Thats always what I associated it with. I think the World Soccer podcasts guys popularized it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Cakes_(The_Sopranos)
I think the bigger issue is uber fans that cant see any flaws in his game. The fact is that our best player ever wasnt that good relative to players around the world. It is interesting these posters are so quick nitpick Pulisic. I just dont understand it.
It's interesting to hear snobs sprint to the defense of our good players then downplay their weaknesses. Maybe it's that they put their big club/world champion abstract obsessions ahead of developing the sort of player who might ever get there. To develop that sort of player you can't just genuflect before the good parts of their game, you have to notice their weaknesses and encourage them getting fixed, or point them out to the next generation coming up. I keep pointing out Dempsey went from a wing dancer to a deadly finisher. That enabled him to move from the side to 9. That enabled him to go from an interesting and fun Weah or Agudelo type with skill but raw, to someone who produced goals regularly for the NT. There aren't a ton of players around who do the work to further upgrade. Also, and something CP's current plight highlights, those strengths and limitations of their game may be the difference between starting, sticking, or ending up elsewhere. Eddie Johnson's clumsiness in finishing and dribbling is why he couldn't make it in England. Jozy stunk in England because he lacked target player skills. I don't really remember but I wouldn't be surprised if Landon's first B.1 stint went nowhere because he was a one way player in a country where they largely get stuck in. These details matter even if you are the most pro-Euro guy out there. It's why it's so odd to me that snobs tend to be loathe to critique our big club guys for anything but loafing. If the game is we need to hold to a higher standard, shouldn't you be scrutinizing for that? The irony of some of this discussion here is while promoting the soft parts of the game some of these players were judged for lacking bite. Jozy was judged for not being able to do the more crude bit of trapping, shielding, and passing. Landon didn't like to tackle. Now, some players like EJ got stick for not being sufficiently technical, but this to me is more rare among players eager to go abroad. Nonetheless that is the seeming point of emphasis. I think this confuses trying to build a world class name brand player with trying to build someone who makes your average MLS or European team happy. Neymar may not be called upon to play a back to goal target. A player not that level may be expected to have the more rough tools in the the toolbox. eg, if you go to Germany, they are going to expect 110% effort in practice and games, offensive usefulness, AND that you are willing to chase and get stuck in on defense.
I think it is quite a few. Playing the games we had no chance of winning always brought out the best. Portugal '02, Spain '09, Italy '06, England '10, Portugal '14, Colombia '94. The problem has always been the big moment against an equal or worse team: Iran '98, Poland '02, Czech/Ghana '06, Ghana '10, T&T '17. There have been dozens of USMNT players that had a great game at the World Cup and then followed it up with a meh or crap game in the same tournament. Ramos, Wynalda, Heyduk, O'Brien, Jones, Howard, Keller, Friedel, McBride, Reyna, Donovan, etc. all have had one or two great games at a World Cup.
You're saying playing better teams "always brought out the best" after the past year or so? Last decent game we had playing over our head against a team that looked like they were trying was France. Historically? I think it's more hit and miss than you'd suggest, you're cherry picking the wins and ignoring the losses and ties right next door. I would say we used to be more competitive to that level but then we were a better team. Duh. A team that can barely string passes against Canada doesn't need to be playing elite opponents. It's a waste of time. These tough games are appropriate tests for veteran laden, drilled, effective teams. OK, we are grooving through Concacaf, let's see how we compare to Germany or Brazil. But if you can't beat Canada you kind of should be spending your time working on coherence and possession and defense and such, and against the sort of opponent that will not stomp you so bad you can't gain chemistry, and that provides more appropriate preparation for the Hex. I again repeat that you are neglecting that a team set up to play in a particular way may look good against one opponent but not another. Italy backs off us. We usually play them well. Ditto Uruguay, who would back off and then jump on the ball recipient all night. In contrast, Mexico right now presses all the way upfield. We cannot handle it. If you read between the lines it becomes consistent. If we had a coach with a brain, we develop a counter-strategy to the teams we can't run the normal offense for. eg, clear the ball out and whack it well upfield, and try and catch them napping with speed. End of ball losses in our own third. They have to build offense from deeper on their end. We start to put some pressure on their backs. But we are on a religious mission violated by telling keepers and backs it's ok to kick ball out of pressure. Ironically what you need the technique for, to me, is the Italy or Uruguay games where they will let us play and you need to be able to handle tight but deep defense, maintain possession, and execute. If you want to think Mexico, think of the final and all the chances we had for 60'. And how well taken their shot was. But many games won't be that way and we have to be willing to be more crude. Not because we should revert, but because the situation calls for the response. That's part of soccer too.