RECAPS
EXTRA TIME
YANKS ABROAD LOCKER ROOM
 
hamsamwich
Post #1
Saturday July 13, 2019 11:28pm

Joined Oct 2013
Total Posts: 3,176
The Gold Cup was not a success in terms of results. But some players did well with their time and proved they should be on the field. Others wasted their chance and should never return.

A few players I liked and who should be on the field for these friendlies:

Aaron Long - I am impressed with his mentality just as much as his game. Winner.

Reggie Cannon - looks the part. Got feistier than I thought he gets vs Mexico.

Paul Arriola - seemed to be the only player who gets positioning in GGGs system, whether it's help defense or staying forward, staying wide or going inside, or being at the back post, Arriola offers a lot to this team.

***the nations league games don't start until October (for USA, while Canada probably will have two wins and 6 points in the bag as they play Cuba twice in a row during September) and while they aren't super important, we will need a net positive result vs Canada over two legs. With that in mind-

I would personally like to see these new players: Weah (for Lewis), Sargent (for jozy), Gloster (for Lovitz), Dest (for Ream), and Pomykal (for Bradley).

Kamphgruppe
Michigan
Post #2
Sunday July 14, 2019 6:23pm

Joined Jul 2012
Total Posts: 829
Original post from hamsamwich

The Gold Cup was not a success in terms of results. But some players did well with their time and proved they should be on the field. Others wasted their chance and should never return.

A few players I liked and who should be on the field for these friendlies:

Aaron Long - I am impressed with his mentality just as much as his game. Winner.

Reggie Cannon - looks the part. Got feistier than I thought he gets vs Mexico.

Paul Arriola - seemed to be the only player who gets positioning in GGGs system, whether it's help defense or staying forward, staying wide or going inside, or being at the back post, Arriola offers a lot to this team.

***the nations league games don't start until October (for USA, while Canada probably will have two wins and 6 points in the bag as they play Cuba twice in a row during September) and while they aren't super important, we will need a net positive result vs Canada over two legs. With that in mind-

I would personally like to see these new players: Weah (for Lewis), Sargent (for jozy), Gloster (for Lovitz), Dest (for Ream), and Pomykal (for Bradley).


We made it to the final and had a legit chance to win, we also learned a lot about about our depth as most of these guys will probably be backups at best once the WC rolls around. I think it was a success. I would love to see some younger players get the nod. What I don't want to see is Zardes Jozy, Ream, Bradley, Trapp

hamsamwich
Post #3
Monday July 15, 2019 3:03am

Joined Oct 2013
Total Posts: 3,176
So two random guys disagree on this. Then there's coach Berhalters opinion.

Does he view it as a success and continue with most of the same guys and same system?
Or does he feel he needs to look at different players in a successful system?

Or does he say no it wasn't good enough. And same guys, new tactics...
And then the last option, new players, new system???

It's a choice that kind of decides the short term future of this program and how Gregg sees the pool of players. World Cup qualifying is a year away so this would be the time to change anything if he is going to. Also Gregg can always revert to something more like what he did at the Crew as well. Or the inverted right back thing. Lots of choices even if staying the course is the choice he picks.

Kamphgruppe
Michigan
Post #4
Monday July 15, 2019 4:11pm

Joined Jul 2012
Total Posts: 829
Original post from hamsamwich

So two random guys disagree on this. Then there's coach Berhalters opinion.

Does he view it as a success and continue with most of the same guys and same system?
Or does he feel he needs to look at different players in a successful system?

Or does he say no it wasn't good enough. And same guys, new tactics...
And then the last option, new players, new system???

It's a choice that kind of decides the short term future of this program and how Gregg sees the pool of players. World Cup qualifying is a year away so this would be the time to change anything if he is going to. Also Gregg can always revert to something more like what he did at the Crew as well. Or the inverted right back thing. Lots of choices even if staying the course is the choice he picks.


I think he already stated that he felt it was successful but I would be interested in hearing his reasons why. I think there is an Extra time radio broadcast where they guys called him out about his roster, subs, etc. I will have to go to youtube and listen to that tonight. I think who he calls into the next friendlies will tell us a lot about where the program is headed.

Lilshmike
Post #5
Monday July 15, 2019 4:32pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 1,224
How the GC panned out:
  • We scored the second most goals (1 behind Mexico)
  • Had the least goals conceded (2, and they came in the final 2 games)
  • Had 4 shutouts
  • Lost only one game
  • Finished second after losing to an admittedly stronger, better Mexico side 1-0 in a close game where we were not clearly outclassed
Three of our best players weren't there (Brooks, Adams, and Yedlin), we saw a couple new faces get decent PT (Cannon and Boyd), and it gave us a good starting point to gauge where we are at this point in time.

It would have been nice to win, but the best team in the tournament won. Given everything else, this was fairly successful regardless of the final game result. Like I said in the GC thread, if you would have polled this site and most of the US Soccer fanbase before the tournament if what I just laid out would have been seen as a success, it very likely would have been a resounding "Yes".

hamsamwich
Post #6
Monday July 15, 2019 5:11pm

Joined Oct 2013
Total Posts: 3,176
I agree with most of that. I'm surprised to hear you two thought "we weren't clearly outclassed" and "had a legit chance to win" in the final. Really???

But as we move into September what is he going to do?? Continue with the same or change?? That's the question/debate etc. the gold cup is over.

Kamphgruppe
Michigan
Post #7
Monday July 15, 2019 5:42pm

Joined Jul 2012
Total Posts: 829
Original post from hamsamwich

I agree with most of that. I'm surprised to hear you two thought "we weren't clearly outclassed" and "had a legit chance to win" in the final. Really???

But as we move into September what is he going to do?? Continue with the same or change?? That's the question/debate etc. the gold cup is over.


Shots on goal for the final were 5 for Mexico and 3 for us. I thought we had the more dangerous chances aside from the Mexico goal. We should have been up 2-0 at half but didn't finish our chances. Yes they dominated the 2nd half but that was because we were pushing for a goal and our offensive subs let them dominate the midfield. I wonder how the game would have played out had we gone up 1-0 first half. Also never said we were not clearly outclassed, said we had a legitimate chance to win.

Lilshmike
Post #8
Monday July 15, 2019 5:56pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 1,224
Original post from hamsamwich

I agree with most of that. I'm surprised to hear you two thought "we weren't clearly outclassed" and "had a legit chance to win" in the final. Really???

But as we move into September what is he going to do?? Continue with the same or change?? That's the question/debate etc. the gold cup is over.
We were the better side in the first half and should have buried a couple of goals early. We had chances, but didn't finish. Mexico dominated the second half, scored a late goal, and beat us 1-0. Thats a close game, not being clearly outclassed. We lose 2-0 or 3-0 with Mexico controlling the entire game start to finish, then we would have been clearly outclassed. You're arguing something without an actual defense for it. Messenger... not the message.

My money is on Berhalter doing a lot of the same. He will likely rotate in a few new guys, but I'd put money on 75% of the roster staying the same - starting lineup included. If you want to have a successful team, you have to build a core and develop around them so they can understand and take the lead - not burn it all down and bring in 10 new guys each time around and consistently change the lineup. You can't develop a rhythm, identity, style of play, etc. effectively when there is a constant shift in personnel.

Not only that, but (as I've been pointing out) you need to have the kids fight for spots and earn them instead of just handing out roster spots to any random kid on a high profile team in Europe. If some of the kids that are younger who people cry about getting snubbed are truly better than the options we have, then they will prove it by breaking into the first teams at their clubs, play consistently, and produce on the field where there is no option for Berhalter but to play them. If they sit the bench or play in the reserves... expect more of the same.

cudevil
Post #9
Monday July 15, 2019 6:15pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 962
Shouldn't the kids "fight for spots" by being invited into camps and working it out in practice?

If someone isn't performing for the Nats, why should they continue to be called in? (i.e. Trapp and Zardes).

If someone clearly won't be part of the team come '22, why should they be part of the set up (Omar and Ream)?

Lilshmike
Post #10
Monday July 15, 2019 6:18pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 1,224
Original post from cudevil

Shouldn't the kids "fight for spots" by being invited into camps and working it out in practice?
Yes, but you have to do something at the club level in order to warrant being called into camp in the first place...

Lilshmike
Post #11
Monday July 15, 2019 6:32pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 1,224
Like it or not, Zardes is arguably our most in-form striker. I wish that wasn't the case, but it simply is. I don't like him or rate him, but its understandable why he continues to get called in.

Wood, Sargent, Novakovich, Wright, Johannsson, etc. aren't doing enough at the club level to knock Zardes down the pecking order. But a forward's job is to score goals... and if they aren't doing that for their club team, how can a coach have faith they'll do it for the USMNT? If Sargent gets into a consistent first off the bench role, Wood starts scoring goals again, Novakovich becomes a starter at Reading and consistently produces (or goes on loan and does the same), Johannsson starts bagging goals at Hammarby, etc. - then yes, absolutely take Zardes off the team. But until then, it shouldn't be a surprise that those guys get left off the roster while Zardes doesn't.

I'm most interested in Weah and where he is going to end up. Will he play wide or as a ST? I think he would do a fairly decent job as a ST. Considering the typical hype train following random guys playing in Europe, Weah has flown relatively under the radar. He isn't getting nearly as much hype/praise as Sargent, yet he has done more at the senior club level than him.

bjelks
Post #12
Monday July 15, 2019 6:38pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 1,291
Original post from Lilshmike

We were the better side in the first half and should have buried a couple of goals early. We had chances, but didn't finish. Mexico dominated the second half, scored a late goal, and beat us 1-0. Thats a close game, not being clearly outclassed. We lose 2-0 or 3-0 with Mexico controlling the entire game start to finish, then we would have been clearly outclassed. You're arguing something without an actual defense for it. Messenger... not the message.

My money is on Berhalter doing a lot of the same. He will likely rotate in a few new guys, but I'd put money on 75% of the roster staying the same - starting lineup included. If you want to have a successful team, you have to build a core and develop around them so they can understand and take the lead - not burn it all down and bring in 10 new guys each time around and consistently change the lineup. You can't develop a rhythm, identity, style of play, etc. effectively when there is a constant shift in personnel.

Not only that, but (as I've been pointing out) you need to have the kids fight for spots and earn them instead of just handing out roster spots to any random kid on a high profile team in Europe. If some of the kids that are younger who people cry about getting snubbed are truly better than the options we have, then they will prove it by breaking into the first teams at their clubs, play consistently, and produce on the field where there is no option for Berhalter but to play them. If they sit the bench or play in the reserves... expect more of the same.


So you shouldn't shift the personnel even if they've proved to not be the best option?
goalsense
hamsamwich
Post #13
Monday July 15, 2019 7:15pm

Joined Oct 2013
Total Posts: 3,176
Zardes has been average at best in MLS this year. Cant really say he's in form. I'd agree based on what Gregg has shown that players have to play to earn their spot. I think where people have a problem is let's say for example that Pomykal gets transferred then he becomes a bench player at a bigger club. He should still be better than the people he was outplaying in MLS even if he's on a bench in a bigger league.

hamsamwich
Post #14
Monday July 15, 2019 7:19pm

Joined Oct 2013
Total Posts: 3,176
Also there are only maybe 12 games to go before World Cup qualifying.

hamsamwich
Post #15
Monday July 15, 2019 7:35pm

Joined Oct 2013
Total Posts: 3,176
Also Zardes is the least concern of the three musketeers that are Greggs boys. I'd say Trapp and Omar have to go yesterday.

Page 1 of 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  Next » Last »»

With Jesse Marsch and David Wagner at the helms of teams in the top flight, YA will cover their exploits this season.
RECENT POSTS
YA Transfer Tracker
Yanks Face Relegation in England
Tale of Two Young Yanks in Europe
Wagner Nears Premier League Goal