I don't have an opinion on Acosta beyond that I don't think he should be flushed down the toilet based on that call up. Want to do it based on '17-'20 MLS that's fine, but that pair of friendlies, out of season, 2 games 4 days, is a real ----y way to evaluate a player's relevance. Personally he's like my 8th-10th central midfielder, something like that, he's like 4th or 5th on my list of guys I'd consider at the 6 after I spent some time thinking about it today.
Every team seems to play hoof ball at some point in a season or a tournament. Even if it’s just a few minutes at the end of games.
Yes and he wasn't contributing what he does for Barnsley. He'll probably be a much better all round player of and when he returns. On the NT side I'd love to see Dike occupy a couple of CONCACAF defenders while Puli and Reyna run rings around them but I can't see GB sacrificing his "principles".
Why is it based on the call up? He's not a good soccer player. He's bad and he's not young. Shouldn't be anywhere near our team.
The big issue you've identified is those who evaluate player performances based on NT matches, which is scary and pretty common here... Nobody with much sense was evaluating these guys based on the NT performance, which is a small sample size. Acosta, for example, is an average MLS midfielder. He's been evaluated over many matches and seasons in MLS, and simply is JAG. We don't need to evaluate him based on small NT performances, because he shouldn't even be there. Your point on Cannon is better. He's played well in Portugal by most accounts, and is apparently drawing interest from other/better clubs. That is how we must evaluate his talents, not a friendly against Jamaica. Dike the same. He had a good season in Orlando, had just 30 minutes of average NT play, and has really popped in a good system in England. Again - he must be evaluated by his club performances, which are more frequent, and increasingly impressive. I don't understand the people here who use a couple friendlies to determine a player's worth. The best example is Long. He was good in MLS 2 years ago, was average/below average last year. Was fairly poor with the NT during that time as well, which bsky has shown with numerous clips, probably the worst being Venezuela. But now? He looks ok in a couple friendlies against terrible opposition, and he's a starter. Why? Look at his club performances. I don't care he looks fine against El Salvador's B team. Meanwhile, we have other guys starting in better leagues, for better performing teams, and can't even get a call up, all because a guy has been installed because he looks decent in friendlies. Overall - I agree with the global point. Evaluate players based on club play. The NT just doesn't have enough games of consequence to be able to choose guys based on these games.
I do wonder how his skills will translate to the US, especially in CONCACAF. So much of his success today was based on counterattacks, similar to his good chances in the NI game for the NT. Obviously we're all pumped about his success, but it does seem he's really benefiting from a system that lets him effectively be a freight train in the opponent's half. Will he have those opportunities against a team that's bunkering? In my opinion, probably not, but he's such a physical freak he will likely still be drawing attention, as you said. I haven't watched enough of him to know about his hold up play, but that's apparently his weakness. Once he cleans that up, he might have a 10 year long hold on the striker position with the US!
Orlando City don't play 'hoof ball'. Dike had 8 goals and 2 assists in 1300 minutes with Orlando. In his rookie season. In a team that had prolific, established attacking options. He has a better record in a better league, but then a certain level of growth off a rookie season is obviously to be expected. Dike has excelled in two very different systems.
Serious question. When was the last time a USMNT player played worse than Acosta did vs. N. Ireland? That was really embarrassing.
Hex-level teams generally haven't bunkered against the US WCQing. Possession stats from WCQing can be easily obtained.
He was a big reason we did so well last season. Dwyer was our DP forward who didn’t play a minute and would have been disastrous if it wasn’t for Dike. We also brought in another forward from Spanish 2nd division. He played a few scrap minutes in a few games, because Dike did his thing.
Against Costa Rica, in WCQing, Jonathan Brooks had an all-time worst match of any Nats. And he was in-season. Acosta did well at Azteca and on the road against Honduras. Not a world beater. But when he has been in form he has been a good player. Not arguing he is first XI.
What does that have to do with how they'll play against us now? Of course a team wasn't bunkering against the US from '14-'17. Why would they? They were better. You're saying Honduras and Panama will attack a team full of UCL-level guys the same way they did when we were throwing out a spine of Bradley, Omar Gonzalez, and Nagbe?
He literally played Siebatcheu and then Dike as a target striker in the Northern Ireland game. Dike's not elite with the ball or anything, but he has some skills and has done well with Orlando, who really didn't use him as a route one striker at all.
Alex Mighten pic.twitter.com/Hs7y3dRECN— Tim Weah Stan Account (@TimWeahStan) April 5, 2021 attn Gregg
Who has been bunkering now? They weren't better in the '14 cycle. The US isn't full of UCL-level players.
Nice angle That's six goals in 13 matches for @DarylDike during his loan spell with @BarnsleyFC. KEEP GOING DARYL! 😀🇺🇸https://t.co/DFtTTbnUbi— U.S. Soccer Men's National Team (@USMNT) April 5, 2021
I hadn't noticed on first watch what you two saw but watched several more times to figure it out: Aaronson is in front of the #43 player, mostly obscured until the huddle breaks. If you look closely you can see a flash of his hair.
I guess you could call them "counterattacks", but mostly it seems to me like "hey, we have an opportunity to give it to Dike's feet this time! Yay!"
The USMNT lead the Hex in scoring in 2017 and beat the hell out of Panama and Honduras at home. Seems like teams would want to protect their goal differential.
The US scored 10 goals in 2 games, and (from memory maybe slightly off) 7 goals in the other 8. They finished 5th. I don't understand the rationale here. The US was not good in the last Hex. The US had 1 player in the last Hex that would play on this team, and it's the same guy. Why would teams play the US the same way as they have in the past? Nobody is answering that question.
in a HUGE win over psg that has them in the drivers seat for the league. it could also cause lille to play more safely. weah will see at least slightly more minutes for sure, but i dont know that hes in line to join the first 11.
It seems like most teams will still view themselves as big underdogs to the US (as they have for 15 years or more), Omar Gonzalez or not. And so they'll still hack, pack it in and play for quick counters. I don't think it'll look much different this time.
i hate saying this as its usually snide, condescending bs (which is absolutey not my intent here)- but are you watching him? i mean, nobodys gonna confuse barnsley for barca (or leeds, for that matter) but hes scoring on long runs onto through balls, receiving on the wing and carrying into the box, etc. hes not remotely just posting up or bulling his way to headers. that stereotype of the target man on a route one team is simply not the case.
You just answered your own question. A team that dropped 10 goals in 2 games is scary and getting beat like that could ruin a campaign. It's hard to beat anybody 6-0 in a competitive game. See: Germany v. Luxembourg.