RECAPS
EXTRA TIME
YANKS ABROAD LOCKER ROOM
 
Lilshmike
Post #46
Wednesday July 17, 2019 6:44pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 1,178
Original post from cudevil

Each WC qualifying cycle is an independent event. We don't have higher odds of NOT qualifying just because we've qualified for the prior 6.

The notion that we are only in a developmental phase if we are starting at ground zero is baffling. We had a catastrophic failure last qualifying cycle. You seem to think "Oh well, that's just the odds", and therefore we shouldn't be taking a hard look at everyone. That's a ridiculous approach. Everyone should be up for review and possible replacement. And that mind set should apply at all times, but especially after the lowest point in national team since the '98 WC, if not ever.

I'd also add that you reference the Netherlands, Italy, and Chile as good teams that didn't qualify. The Netherlands and Italy pretty much flushed the system after that, and made a concerted effort to hand over the reins to younger players. Germany just did the same thing after the Cup of Nations. Now, do those countries have deeper player pools? Of course. But it's not like the guys that they just summarily kicked to the curb didn't still have something to offer.
Yes, that is correct. Each event is an independent event with the same odds in this scenario (ie. one event's outcome does not impact the outcome of another event); however, when taken in sequence, there is a greater probability for one of those events to not have the same outcome as the previous (qualify for the WC). The odds of qualifying for a WC = 90%. Odds of qualifying for 7 WCs in a row (at a 90% per WC expectancy) = 48%. Playing the odds, the more WCs there are, the higher chance that we would fail to qualify for one of them, regardless of the fact that all independent events contain the same outcome probabilities. At that point, its just a matter of "which one do we not qualify for, even though we have a 90% chance of qualifying for each cycle". From a one off occurrence - you're right. Extrapolating those events out to a larger sample size - I am right.

No, I don't think "oh well, its just the odds." If we want to talk odds (if I remember correctly), Nate Silver had odds of us qualifying for the WC at like 93% going into the T&T game. Reason being was that if we lost, that did not mean we failed to qualify. We had to lose, Panama had to beat CR, and Honduras had to beat Mexico. All three of those things happened. Panama scored a last minute goal to get a win and secure a spot. Both us and Mexico had own goals scored on us that proved to be crucial. It was legitimately a fluke. Had one of those results been different, we would have gone through.

Should we have been in that spot? No. We should have done better to not leave it to the last game, and even so we should have done better. But regardless, that last night of qualifying was a freak occurrence. A blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. I disagree that us failing to qualify was some monumental catastrophe where we burn everything down and start from scratch. Make adjustments? Yes. Look at new players? Always.

But if you look at the players who are still in the pool from last cycle, the players who are in the age range where they will/could be in the picture for 2022, factor in the players who phased out due to age and consider the new guys who phased in, this isn't abnormal. It just isn't. Its very much business as usual - the only difference is that we didnt qualify for the last WC so the perception people have is that this is some rare situation we're in when we aren't. This legitimately happens to almost every national team with player turnover between cycles.

Lilshmike
Post #47
Wednesday July 17, 2019 7:08pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 1,178
Compared to previous cycles, where is the big change and signs of a development phase?
  • GK: No real issue. Timmy out, everyone else still in the picture - null
  • LB: We never really had a LB. Its always been a sore spot for us, so no real change/development for that - status quo
  • CB: Cameron is the only CB really out, Omar is phasing out. Brooks is still in from the last 2 cycles, Miazga was in last cycle too and Arena made a comment about him being the potential starter in 2018. Zimmerman and Long are getting looks now, and theeyve done alright. Again, we really only lost 1 guy, the rest is depth and business as usual - very slight change
  • RB: We still have Yedlin. Maybe we try other guys at this position, and now we have Lima and Cannon. Thats building depth, but the main guy (Yedlin) is still around. No real change (unless Adams moves there, but thats TBD) - status quo, building depth
  • CM: Bradley still in, but lost a few (Jones, Feilhaber, Bedoya, Beckerman). We have guys from previous cycles who are still around (Acosta although he seems to be phased out, Williams if he can get back into form since injury), and we have McKennie, Adams, and Trapp. This is the only real big change from last cycle, but we seemingly have young guys who can take over - change
  • Wings: We never really had reliable wingers and were always shifting in the position anyways. Arriola is still around, and hes good enough for the time being. Would it be nice if we had someone better? Sure, but no big. This excludes Pulisic, and we now have Boyd and some others emerging - slight change, building depth
  • FWD: The only forward truly out of the picture from last cycle is Dempsey. Everyone else is still in the frame, and now we have Sargent and Weah breaking in (Weah could also be a winger). The problem isn't that we dont have forwards or are rebuilding, the issue is that most (if not all) aren't in form. Regardless, still the same cast with a couple new depth guys who are pushing into the picture - status quo, building depth
Thats my own opinion of it, maybe others disagree. But when you actually look at the positions, think of where we were last cycle and before, where we are now, who we had and now have, who left and who came in, this is not an anomaly. Its fairly standard.

hamsamwich
Post #48
Wednesday July 17, 2019 7:10pm

Joined Oct 2013
Total Posts: 3,143
The last night of qualifying was a result of the decisions by the ussf that put us in that situation, not a freak occurrence. We didn't get points because our play had gotten stale and the wrong players chosen. Bruce arena made those decisions (such as settling for a 1-1 draw v Panama in a game we had ample chance to attack) and there was a decision made to hire him. And a strange agenda to re promote "American" players as they said at that time.

So @lilshmike- I asked this months ago and now again- if this isn't a developmental period then how is the goal not to win? Those statistics you listed for the Gold Cup were against super inferior opposition and are in line with Bradley/Jurgen/Bruce i.e. those are the expected results for USA in the gold cup, to beat shit teams.

cudevil
Post #49
Wednesday July 17, 2019 8:43pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 933
Losing to T&T in a meaningful match (any time really) is, in and of itself, a catastrophe. It's wholly irrelevant that a bunch of other stuff had to happen in order to knock the US out of the WC.

And then to be comfortable with the status quo just because "it was legitimately a fluke" is mind boggling to me. It completely disregards/glosses over that we had played like complete shit for the entire qualification process. In alternate universe where we did actually qualify after losing to T&T, we should have used the entire run up to the WC to get as many of those players out as possible. The fact that we are this far after that debacle, and still using as many of the same guys (without really having called in a lot of alternatives to get a look) is, again, mind boggling.

We should be auditioning replacements for Zardes, Altidore, Bradley, Arriola, Trapp, Omar, Ream, and Morris, just off the top of my head. I think Bradley and Altidore still have a place in the 23, but shouldn't be starters.

Know Nothing
Post #50
Wednesday July 17, 2019 10:06pm

Joined Jan 2013
Total Posts: 1,617
Original post from Lilshmike

No... it wasn't convenient. It was a summary of the situation. Italy and Netherlands didn't make it, but they should have - competition or not. There were other national teams who struggled to make it across the finish line as well like Colombia, and Chile (the 2 time defending South American Champion) failed to qualify.

And I'm sorry, but I'm going to call you out on that last statement. Playing time at a club is not important? Thats... thats just way off base. So if we call in a squad with a bunch of youth/reserve/bench team players, how are we to expect them to play with the USMNT if they have no game experience? If they don't play for their club team, how are we even supposed to know what they can do or how they could possibly fit into the USMNT? At that point, you're calling in players you know nothing about and/or haven't seen, simply because they may be on the books for a high profile club. Thats pretty stupid, and no reputable, respectable manager would ever do that.


Now you are being ridiculous. Of course we would not call in a squad of players without a lot of match experience, just a few special circumstances like Sargent and Weah.

And I refute the fact that you would be calling in players that you know nothing about. In most cases, you would have seen the players qualities as they came up through the ranks of the various youth national teams. Is that not the purpose of those teams? Besides, is it not the duty of the coach/manager to track all players that can help the team?

And even so, I seem to recall a good number of the T&T players that kept us from competing in the WC fit the category of bench warmers and youth players.

bjelks
Post #51
Wednesday July 17, 2019 10:24pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 1,229
Original post from cudevil

Losing to T&T in a meaningful match (any time really) is, in and of itself, a catastrophe. It's wholly irrelevant that a bunch of other stuff had to happen in order to knock the US out of the WC.

And then to be comfortable with the status quo just because "it was legitimately a fluke" is mind boggling to me. It completely disregards/glosses over that we had played like complete shit for the entire qualification process. In alternate universe where we did actually qualify after losing to T&T, we should have used the entire run up to the WC to get as many of those players out as possible. The fact that we are this far after that debacle, and still using as many of the same guys (without really having called in a lot of alternatives to get a look) is, again, mind boggling.

We should be auditioning replacements for Zardes, Altidore, Bradley, Arriola, Trapp, Omar, Ream, and Morris, just off the top of my head. I think Bradley and Altidore still have a place in the 23, but shouldn't be starters.


What do you think would push Bradley and Jozy out?
goalsense
stoked3
Ft Lauderdale, FL
Post #52
Wednesday July 17, 2019 10:26pm

Joined Oct 2014
Total Posts: 291
Original post from Lilshmike

No... it wasn't convenient. It was a summary of the situation. Italy and Netherlands didn't make it, but they should have - competition or not. There were other national teams who struggled to make it across the finish line as well like Colombia, and Chile (the 2 time defending South American Champion) failed to qualify.

And I'm sorry, but I'm going to call you out on that last statement. Playing time at a club is not important? Thats... thats just way off base. So if we call in a squad with a bunch of youth/reserve/bench team players, how are we to expect them to play with the USMNT if they have no game experience? If they don't play for their club team, how are we even supposed to know what they can do or how they could possibly fit into the USMNT? At that point, you're calling in players you know nothing about and/or haven't seen, simply because they may be on the books for a high profile club. Thats pretty stupid, and no reputable, respectable manager would ever do that.


I believe Green didn't start with his club and 1st touch in a world cup was an amazing finish-Wondo who is a poster MLS player-missed a sitter in front of goal. Seems to me Green not only knew what to do but he did it under extreme pressure late in the game. Wondo who had a guaranteed spot and great stats looked completely out of place-

Alot of young talented guys are trying to break in at big clubs, its not mls, the depth is far greater overseas-Do you think Weah, Sergeant, would start in MLS ? have good stats?

I have said it many times there is no one size fits all that should be applied to callups.

If playing in an inferior league you should have higher playing time and better stats than someone playing in a better league. There is also the idea that a certain player could be a role player.

Lewis is a good example of that. When he came as a sub he looked dangerous mores than Zardes

Or what about Lima he looked good but he sat the bench in mls -but i think he proved he could hold his own against avg international teams.

There is also the future outlook of the player. Is Sergeant/Weah/Busio/green/busio going to be better than Zardes for the Nats come qualifying

Is Richards,EPB, Robinson, etc going to be better than Omar/Ream/Lovitz in 12 months

You don't build a whole team like that but your argument makes you look ridiculous T/T had players who played part time or in leagues equivalent to USL.

If not qualifying for WC doesn't spell out a need for change to you and we are calling it unlucky than by all means we will never progress.

We have talented people but we have a stupid federation and a coach who like Bruce picks from the same mls guys. There are better mls options than the guys we pick every single time.

Based on GB callups Form doesn't really mean anything its all based on who he knows.

how the hell didn't wooten, or nova, get a call over Zardes?

Just humor everyone and open your thought process to we have better options to bring in, and we have potential better options to call in, and to your point you think they will shit the bed b.c they are not ready, well lets see who can hang and who can not and lets compare them to the deadweight on the roster now and then judge who will be better for the team in 12 months come qualifying
Stoked
cudevil
Post #53
Wednesday July 17, 2019 10:53pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 933
Original post from bjelks

What do you think would push Bradley and Jozy out?


Playing Adams as a natural no. 6 would push Bradley out.

I'd be playing Sargent right now, with Jozy as the back up. Failing that, if Wood came back to form, he could move Jozy to the bench. I'd take a look at Nova, but in the games I've seen him play, I'm not sure he's better than Jozy right now (or that he will be). I'd take a look at Soto as well, but while I like his work rate and positional awareness, I have questions about his touch (he made most everything look difficult in U20 WC).

bjelks
Post #54
Wednesday July 17, 2019 11:40pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 1,229
Can Novakovich's shooting be worse than Jozy's?

I'm referring to pushing Bradley out of the 23. My opinion, both should've been out a yr ago
goalsense
Lilshmike
Post #55
Wednesday July 17, 2019 11:56pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 1,178
Original post from hamsamwich

The last night of qualifying was a result of the decisions by the ussf that put us in that situation, not a freak occurrence. We didn't get points because our play had gotten stale and the wrong players chosen. Bruce arena made those decisions (such as settling for a 1-1 draw v Panama in a game we had ample chance to attack) and there was a decision made to hire him. And a strange agenda to re promote "American" players as they said at that time.

So @lilshmike- I asked this months ago and now again- if this isn't a developmental period then how is the goal not to win? Those statistics you listed for the Gold Cup were against super inferior opposition and are in line with Bradley/Jurgen/Bruce i.e. those are the expected results for USA in the gold cup, to beat shit teams.
I entirely agree with you on your first statement. I think the decision to fire Klinsmann was the reason we ultimately failed to qualify. They thought Arena was a safe bet, but he wasn't.

With respect to the second point - what question? I don't think you've ever asked that question and you consistently claim I don't answer your questions when I do pretty much every time. If you don't like my answer, that doesn't mean I didn't answer. But, I'll do it again.

Our goal in competitive games (or any game when we play Mexico) should always be to win. Developmental period or not. If we have random friendlies before tournaments or otherwise, winning may not be the top priority. You want to integrate younger players? Friendlies are great opportunities for that. Want to try a random, new formation with hail mary subs to see the outcome? Do it in a friendly. Thats what those games are for. I personally never want to see us lose, but depending on the circumstances I may or may not be upset by it. Its a case by case basis.

Example - friendlies before the GC. We lost when we were playing random guys to give them a chance to play in or out of the team. I get that. We lose, NBD. I'm not concerned because I knew what the goal/objective was in that game and it has no true impact on us because it wasn't competitive. Now the GC? I wanted us to win. I wanted us to win every game. But we lost 1 game to Mexico... who was a better team. Although it would have been great to win, I'm not terribly upset by it or think its a problem because the better team (Mexico) won in a close game and we made it as far as we could in the tournament (the final).

Now thats a very clear and direct answer. I would assume you wont put words in my mouth again or try to derive some hidden meaning in what I said when there is none. You've done that before, please don't do it now.

Lilshmike
Post #56
Thursday July 18, 2019 12:14am

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 1,178
Original post from cudevil

Losing to T&T in a meaningful match (any time really) is, in and of itself, a catastrophe. It's wholly irrelevant that a bunch of other stuff had to happen in order to knock the US out of the WC.

And then to be comfortable with the status quo just because "it was legitimately a fluke" is mind boggling to me. It completely disregards/glosses over that we had played like complete shit for the entire qualification process. In alternate universe where we did actually qualify after losing to T&T, we should have used the entire run up to the WC to get as many of those players out as possible. The fact that we are this far after that debacle, and still using as many of the same guys (without really having called in a lot of alternatives to get a look) is, again, mind boggling.

We should be auditioning replacements for Zardes, Altidore, Bradley, Arriola, Trapp, Omar, Ream, and Morris, just off the top of my head. I think Bradley and Altidore still have a place in the 23, but shouldn't be starters.
No... The fact that the other stuff happens still needs to be taken into consideration. The reason is that had that not - we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. We could have lost and still gone through. We lost and still probably should have gone through - had it not been for a total fluke of an occurrence. So yes, its important to have context.

I'm not fine with the status quo. When did I ever say that? Care to find a quote? I'd love you to. I've only said that I don't find this to be a catastrophe, and that everything that is happening right now is normal - the only difference is that people interpret it as some ridiculous, catastrophic incident because we didn't play in the last WC. If we qualified, we wouldn't be talking about this. We wouldn't be in a "developmental phase" or anything like that. Player turnover happens every cycle with every national team. That is a fact, and that is normal.

We should always be looking for better players, nobody is disputing that. The difference is that... wait for it... there are none yet. Legitimately, these are the best we've got right now. Quote me on that, I've said that too. I wish our pool was better, but its not. And these young guys that everyone moan about and claims should play are, in all honesty, not ready yet. If they were, they would be playing and featuring for their club teams. The fact that so many of them aren't is proof of what I am saying. you want to find one or two examples of a player like Sargent or Weah, fine, thats reasonable. But when people start coming up with entire pools of players who are in the same boat?? No, its not coincidence then. The fact is that those kids aren't ready. When they are, yes, absolutely bring them in. But they need to earn it first with their club teams. Plain and simple. Find one reputable manager who says otherwise.

Once the younger kids demonstrate they can make it at their clubs, lets call them in. But its a process that takes time. It doesn't happen overnight and people expect immediate results with unrealistic expectations. Its a fantasy, not fact.

And yes, I agree with you that Bradley and Altidore still have a place in the 23.I've stated that plenty of times before and have also stated that if I were manager, I wouldn't consider them automatic starters. Omar should be out too. The others you mentioned... well, sorry, we really don't have better options and those guys are still in the picture until other players perform for their clubs and prove that they deserve to knock them down the pecking order. Club form and playing time matters.

Lilshmike
Post #57
Thursday July 18, 2019 12:55am

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 1,178
Original post from Know Nothing

Now you are being ridiculous. Of course we would not call in a squad of players without a lot of match experience, just a few special circumstances like Sargent and Weah.

And I refute the fact that you would be calling in players that you know nothing about. In most cases, you would have seen the players qualities as they came up through the ranks of the various youth national teams. Is that not the purpose of those teams? Besides, is it not the duty of the coach/manager to track all players that can help the team?

And even so, I seem to recall a good number of the T&T players that kept us from competing in the WC fit the category of bench warmers and youth players.
A guy here and there on occasion isn't an issue. Thats to be expected every once in a while - when they've earned it.

The problem is when people are claiming for Richards, CCV, Weah, Sargent, Holmes, EPB, Soto, etc. you name it all to get called in. Most (if not all) aren't ready yet to be called in, and most (if not all) aren't better than the options we have in front of them. And its not like everyone on the roster is a dinosaur. Most guys in the pool right now are in the age range where they will be in prime age for this WC cycle and potentially next, so they are going to be in the picture for the foreseeable future until younger players emerge and push them out. Those younger players will emerge once they've broken through their club teams. If they haven't done that yet, they aren't ready and we are still stuck with the same guys until something changes.

db707
Post #58
Thursday July 18, 2019 1:27am

Joined Oct 2013
Total Posts: 959
Holmes and CCV played regularly in the Championship last season, their cases should not be conflated with those of guys like Richards or Soto or Dest who have little or no first team experience. Holmes in particular, who is 24 now and at the very least could be a good attacking spark off the bench if healthy.

blaise213
Post #59
Thursday July 18, 2019 1:52am

Joined Sep 2012
Total Posts: 2,927
Original post from Lilshmike

Those younger players will emerge once they've broken through their club teams. If they haven't done that yet, they aren't ready and we are still stuck with the same guys until something changes.


IMO, all the players waiting to break through in Europe would be starters in D league MLS

Lilshmike
Post #60
Thursday July 18, 2019 2:42am

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 1,178
Original post from db707

Holmes and CCV played regularly in the Championship last season, their cases should not be conflated with those of guys like Richards or Soto or Dest who have little or no first team experience. Holmes in particular, who is 24 now and at the very least could be a good attacking spark off the bench if healthy.
Fair point, I was only using those guys as examples.

Page 4 of 21
« Previous 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