What's your take on USMNT preference for MLS?

Discussion in 'USA Men' started by DHC1, Apr 15, 2019.

?

What's your take on USMNT preference for MLS?

  1. There's absolutely no preference

    20 vote(s)
    19.6%
  2. There's a preference - it's deserved because they fit better with the system

    1 vote(s)
    1.0%
  3. There's a preference - it's deserved because they're better players

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Way too early to say if there's a preference

    8 vote(s)
    7.8%
  5. Not ready to indict but early signs are ominous that there's an MLS bias

    20 vote(s)
    19.6%
  6. It's obviously a bias and it's bad for the USMNT

    53 vote(s)
    52.0%
  1. Mahtzo1

    Mahtzo1 Member+

    Jan 15, 2007
    So Cal
    Assuming two out due to injury is optimistic. Adams and Weah have been unavailable the whole year (Adams played one game). I believe Brooks has only appeared once but has missed virtually the whole year due to injury. Cannon got his chance because Yedlin missed time due to injury and he only recently came back. Dest wasn't injured but was unavailable due to a combination of U20 duty and having to make a decision between the US and Holland. I'm not counting injuries that only impacted short duration like Pulisic's and McKennie's.

    I'm not sure if you are looking at overall % or game to game so don't know if you are counting the Camp Cupcake minutes. If so, that obviously affects the distribution as well.

    IF you take out the 5 injured players that brings the % of MLS players to 64%, If you use 4 injured, it makes it 62%. Either one is too close to your 67% stat of minute distribution.

    The real point is that Berhalter is making poor personnel choices (IMO). Even if you use the percentages that you use, it doesn't prove or necessarily suggest a quota which you suggest. We all have our biases and Berhalter does too. His bias may or may not be toward MLS but even if he is biased toward MLS it doesn't necessarily imply that there is a quota.

    In my opinion, there are a few glaring omissions in the choices he has made. Several are European. Holmes and Robinson are the two that I think are at the top of the list but Holmes case is a bit confusing because he was called in but picked up an injury. Berhalter hasn't called him in since but I don't think we can say he has lost favor. On the MLS side, Hollingshead and possibly Canouse are two of the players that have the most to gripe about.

    In addition, to the ommission, there are a few players that have received far more time than I think they should get. Bradley is the obvious choice but there is also Lovitz, Ream and Roldan. You attribute his errors to a conscious plan and a quota. I attribute his errors to errors in judgement, planning and execution. Your opinion is more sinister.

    This is a perfect case of correlation not necessarily indicating causation.

    One more thing. My guess is that, based upon him playing virutally every minute, 7-8% the minutes have gone to Bradley. Take out those minutes and it looks much better. What it comes down to is a few players (primarily Bradley) that are playing a disproportionate amount. so the real question is why is that? Is Bradley playing because Berhalter likes MLS better? is it because he sees something in Bradley that we don't? Is it because Bradley is the only one Berhalter sees as being capable of running the "system"?

    In short, I understand why you are so upset about the choices because many of the choices have been bad. I just don't agree that it is part of a conscious effort. Perhaps I'm being naive.
     
  2. Mahtzo1

    Mahtzo1 Member+

    Jan 15, 2007
    So Cal
    By the way, to follow up on Robinson, who is one of the most egregious omissions, in my opinion.

    Robinson is 22 (will be 24 for wc which is young but no longer a baby). He is at the stage of his career where he is likely making the most rapid progress (he will continue to improve as he gets older to a point but at a decreasing rate). He showed a lot of promise the last few times that he played with the US but made some very correctable errors. He has been an every day minute player in the championship and it is time to see him in person to reevaluate where he stands and to see how much he has improved. All that combined with the fact that we will never have too many quality left backs.
     
    Patrick167 repped this.
  3. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    you are of course assuming that only non-MLS players get injured while altidore has misse almost every game and Lletget has missed time as well.

    I am excluding cupcake games and no matter if Adams, brooks or Weah is unavailable, the 67% number doesn’t change. He consistently leaves players like Miazga, ARobinson and Holmes off the roster for little apparent reason.

    Btw, Bradley didn’t receive that much time as he split most of it with Will trapp. There’s another thread which shows how poorly the team does when Bradley/Trapp start vs when they don’t and the on/off numbers are stunning.
     
  4. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    Let’s look at the last camp: injuries took out Weah, adams, Pulisic and altidore.

    that means:

    auto starts (11): MLS 4, Non MLS: 7 (MLS: 36%)
    Deserves a look (12): MLS 8, non-MLS 4 (MLS 70%)
    Total: MLS 12, Non MLS 11 (52%)

    52% is far from 67% which has been extremely consistent every single camp (outside of cupcake). Let’s not forget that this includes all of your lengthy list of MLS players.
     
    Patrick167 repped this.
  5. Mahtzo1

    Mahtzo1 Member+

    Jan 15, 2007
    So Cal
    You are right about Altidore and Lleget. Of course it also illustrates the difficulty in this argument. Who would Altidore take minutes from? some would probably come from Sargent and some from Zardes. Lleget (for me an autocall but not necessarily a autostarter) has been mostly a sub. Who did Brooks take minutes away from? Miazga or Zimmerman?

    Miazga has been on the roster. He was playing fairly consistently but seems to have lost his spot. Why I don't know? Robinson and Holmes have legitimate gripes as do Hollingshead and Canouse. I would also add Green, who is now injured, Ironically, Robinson and Hollingshead both can play left back and that position is taken by Lovitz when Ream isn't playing that spot. (Ironic I think because it is a positon occupied by two players that have gotten more time than they deserve...one Euro based and one MLS).

    Your point about Trapp playing the "less important" games (mostly as I remember) is well taken. FWIW I believe it is clear that Trapp has lost his spot. I think Yueill has overtaken him and I believe that Morales has earned a spot as well.
     
  6. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    I think we’re talking about roster spots rather than minutes (although that’s remarkably consistent across camps as well).

    I just think that the argument for 67% across an entire year requires five auto call ups from Europe and none from MLS to be out injured in every single camp. Do you really think that’s a reasonable scenario?
     
  7. Mahtzo1

    Mahtzo1 Member+

    Jan 15, 2007
    So Cal

    I think it has been very consistent for the vast majority of this year. this past camp was a slight deviation in that only four Euro guys were absent (Steffan also) and Jozy (who has been absent frequently) were out. Also, Bradley was absent as well but he isn't on either of our lists.

    I don't believe it is likely that we have so many Euro injuries going forward. (At least I hope not)

    Perhaps a better description of the year to date would be 5 Euros missing and up to one or two MLS missing due to injury or other reason. I have no reason to believe that it will continue but only that it has been remarkably consistent thus far. I hope that Adams and Weah can get healthy. I hope that Brooks can stay healthy (definitely has been one of his main issues). Yedlin has not been injury prone to this point so I am confident that he will be fine and, of course, Dest doesn't have to worry about declaring anymore.

    Injuries, unfortunately, can be a problem in Europe or MLS but for our NT players, we seem to have been hit disproportionately hard in Europe. Now we have Sargent and Green with injuries but hopefully they will be fine.

    I also believe that younger players, in general, are a bit more susceptible to injury so we may go through a period where we have more injuries than we have had on the national team in the past. Hopefully that is not the case.
     
  8. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    If we add Steffen, then the hurdle has to be 6 non-MLS and no MLS auto starters. That simply hasn’t happened consistently (maybe Gold cup) while the 67% has been consistent. The only camp with high injuries was Gold Cup - none of the others was even close.

    When that’s the case (no consistency of non-MLS injuries with limited MLS ones), how can you argue that the 67% isn’t akin to a quota?

    More specifically, what happened this past camp where Adams, Weah, Pulisic and altidore were absent as shown above but the 67% still held?

    One could push a single camp’s number aside but given the consistency, it’s staring us in the face. It’s also interesting that the number completely matches Arena’s statement when he was coach (2/3 of the pool is MLS).
     
  9. Mahtzo1

    Mahtzo1 Member+

    Jan 15, 2007
    So Cal
    I only added Steffan because he was absent last game. are we counting only field players? Or perhaps I misunderstood the intention of that listing (the Euro and MLS guys that were out due to injury).

    Steffan has not been one of the five that have missed significant time over the course of the year so I didn't count him that way. I didn't count Pulisic either for the same reason. The players you mentioned were injured last game, so I added him because he missed for the same reason.

    I think we are getting a bit ridiculous. My only point was that it seems odd to take a player that is consistently unavailable for one reason or another and use him to raise the numbers/% of players that should have been called. This is especially true when the player is one that Berhalter has demonstrated he would call. (Adams, Brooks, Yedlin for example).

    A player like Green (who is now injured), I would probably put in a slightly different category because he has been available but not called and only recently became injured. Going forward, if he remains injured for a significant period of time, I can see still being critical of Berhalter because he had sufficient time to call him in. Of course, I don't see his ommission as serious as some others but that is only my personal opinion and is very subjective.

    That is not to say my arguments are without flaws. I noticed one the other day, for instance, when I thought about Araujo (After my post about him). I still believe that Araujo should be on the list going forward but he didn't make his breakthrough in MLS until the latter part of the season (at least midway if I remember correctly). As such, it makes it much more difficult to criticize Berhalter for not choosing him In addition, Araujo was part of the U20 squad (as were Dest, Weah, Pomykal). There are undoubtedly others (Pomykal for instance)

    I am sure there are other flaws in my choices.
     
  10. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    A couple of points:

    First, I've tried to adjust the numbers by showing that even if we drop out European auto-calls, the math doesn't work. My baseline was two Euro players out on average and no MLS ones but IIRC, your suggested baseline is five Euro players out at once consistently for the year and didn't show that the five MLS autocalls also received injuries as well.

    Next, wrt to Steffen, I think he's an autocall but in your original analysis, you didn't include keepers so I simply kept your paradigm so as not to compare apples to oranges. I'm happy to add keepers back in but it changes the numbers I presented, if that makes sense. IOW, the number of autocalls is raised by one non-MLS player.

    Here's a simple way to look at it, using the inclusive "roster" that's been put together (including Steffen), we have

    Assuming no injuries
    16 auto-calls: 5 MLS and 11 non-MLS
    7 spots for "deserves a look": 5 MLS and 2 non-MLS (70% MLS)
    Total 10 MLS and 13 non-MLS.

    To get to the 2/3 number, we'd have to have 7 Euro only auto-calls consistently out for every single camp so it looks like this:

    9 autocalls: 5 MLS and 4 non-MLS
    14 "deserves a look": 10 MLS and 4 non-MLS (70% MLS)
    Total: 15 MLS and 8 non-MLS (65% MLS)

    Hopefully, we can both agree that we haven't had 7 Euro auto-calls out on average over every camp and none of the MLS auto-calls.

    If I didn't represent the bolded part accurately, perhaps you'll illuminate.
     
  11. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    So the January camp will be in Doha so that

    a) either a bunch of experimental players will get familiar with Qatar even if they’re not going to be part of the squad

    or

    b) the heart of the team that require familiarity with Qatar will be MLS players and therefore doesn’t include European based players. This was done even though Europe is obviously closer to the Middle East than MLS teams.

    Nice call, USSF!

    Here’s Berhalter’s quote:

    “"Our priority is to qualify for the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, so it's certainly a big benefit to get a head start on experiencing the facilities, environment and culture of the tournament hosts."
     
  12. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    Let's try turning it around: who are the sure-fire MLS players who belong on the March roster? If we were to replace Berhalter with his reverse image who hates MLS, what would the line of proof be that he's biased against MLS?
    • Morris
    • Long
    • Cannon
    • Pomykal
    • Altidore (unreliable due to injury and same age as Chandler)
    A good argument can be made that a few (but not all) of these should be on the roster:
    • an MLS GK (don't care)
    • CB: Zimmerman, MRobinson
    • Wingback: Lima
    • CM: Yuiell, Roldan, Aaronson, Lletget
    • Attackers: Zardes, Arriola
    Going beyond this is tenuous and maybe each coach gets one crazy pick
     
  13. Suyuntuy

    Suyuntuy Member+

    Jul 16, 2007
    Vancouver, Canada
    I'd like to explore alternatives to Roldan at this point.
     
  14. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    first things first: let confirm we’re beyond Bradley and trapp.
     
  15. bsky22

    bsky22 Member+

    Dec 8, 2003
    I'd split it into three categories as I think there a few in both groups that are in between the others.
    • Morris, cannon, altidore
    • Pomykal (not proven), Long (unconvincing year), Robinson, Yeuill, Arriola, Lletget
    • The rest...
    The top group are in the 23. The second group should continue to get chances to compete. Time to move on from the rest until they up their game... can get a look next january if warranted.
     
  16. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    fair enough. I think Long is a very good partner for brooks as brooks benefits from have a fast one-on-one defender next to him and long benefits from have a very good passer next to him.

    I prefer 3 CBs so there’s room for Miazga or another CB as well.

    I’d to hear from the MLS contingent on their thoughts.
     
  17. bsky22

    bsky22 Member+

    Dec 8, 2003
    They dont think there is a bias.
     
  18. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    the question was if it was reversed: what would show anti-MLS bias.
     
  19. bsky22

    bsky22 Member+

    Dec 8, 2003
    Good luck. They are slippery bunch.

    There was supposedly an anti MLS bias circa 2014 to 2016 when 40% to 50% of the team was MLS players. Arena surely didnt find the quality players that were excluded.
     
  20. bsky22

    bsky22 Member+

    Dec 8, 2003
    Why doesnt anyone think of Alvarado. He has similar physical tools to Long and much, much more comfortable on the ball. If people want to do that league comparison nonsense, he checks out as captain of one of the top Liga MX sides.
     
  21. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    take this in a constructive tone: it’s an anonymous soccer message board where we’re disagreeing about a bunch of teens and 20-year old wearing a beloved jersey.

    I do believe that too many people here conflate MLS and the USMNT and refuse to acknowledge where it sits in the global soccer meritocracy but if they root for the USMNT, it’s all good.

    Besides, the poll above shows that it’s pretty well established here that there’s a double standard going on.
     
    jaykoz3 repped this.
  22. yurch10

    yurch10 Member+

    Feb 13, 2004
    Now that Morales has at least been called in (I'd argue he's still not gotten the chances, but whatever) it seems Alvarado might be the biggest/oddest omission.

    I confess to not having seen him for years, and thought he was horrendous when klinsy tried to install him, but from what I hear he likes good to great in mexico.
     
  23. Suyuntuy

    Suyuntuy Member+

    Jul 16, 2007
    Vancouver, Canada
    An Alvarado-Miazga pair would be interesting against Central American teams.
     
  24. DHC1

    DHC1 Member+

    Jun 3, 2002
    NYC
    [moved]

    you’ve posted this and other similar comments a couple of times.

    Simple question: do you believe that Berhalter treats MLS players the same as those outside MLS?

    where would you vote in the poll?
     
  25. tomásbernal

    tomásbernal Member+

    Sep 4, 2007
    Club:
    Portland Timbers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I was mostly making fun of the people who constantly harp on some grand conspiracy headed by shadowy SUM people and Don Garber.

    I think Berhalter has been foolish, and chosen at least some players based on characteristics that no one else seems to value. I think he probably came into the job being very familiar with MLS guys, and not so much with the foreign-based players, and so went with them largely in 2019 out of comfort. I'll reiterate that I think he made a number of poor choices in 2019, some repeatedly, but the news I've been reading lately has me leaning back towards hopeful that: a) the youngster contingent is coming along nicely and a solid few will be at contribution level for the full MNT this year, b) he's learning from his mistakes and might actually make positive changes, and c) he might have figured out how to implement his tactical instructions in a more clear and concise manner (also, that enough players have played in his set up now that it's easier to implement).

    Sorry, I rarely do black or white questions like you're asking.
     

Share This Page