EXTRA TIME
YANKS ABROAD LOCKER ROOM
 
bjelks
Post #226
Sunday March 28, 2021 10:46pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 2,043
Original post from hamsamwich

I disagree on Ream. His distribution was excellent. Sometimes you need to have consistency from the players you aren't putting under the magnifying lens. I agree the 3-4-3 was not good- the attacking shape was similar to the 4-3-3 but the difference is having that CDM to control that area in front of the defense. Miazga needed to step quicker I thought he was poor. I'm not seeing what you guys are seeing offensively from Robinson he's like a no savvy no nuance version of Arjen Robben robotically trying to get it to his left foot. Siebatcheu was average he was slow to react on the one good ball Robinson sent across which in that moment I said "Zardes would've scored that". Siebatcheu was like if Haji Wright had better technique but I didn't really see anything besides a big guy who couldn't win and control a long ball.


Ream was slow to react and defensively a step slow

Distribution is fine, but he's so damn slow, this was an awful NI team

Siebatchu was fine, very good hold up play and combinations, nothing spectacular otherwise

Dike made good runs and was very strong to hold off defenders, he don't have the brain or technique of Siebatchu
goalsense
Kamphgruppe
Michigan
Post #227
Sunday March 28, 2021 10:55pm

Joined Jul 2012
Total Posts: 1,284
Original post from bjelks

No, it's always the right time to play the best players that give you the best chance to win

Doesn't matter how many games Long and Ream have played, they were never have Richards and EPB's ability and quality


I have to disagree here. Sometimes better players do not give you a better chance of winning because for whatever reason they don't jive with the team, don't have the experience etc. If GB is planning on these players playing in actual WCQ games then it is vital that they get minutes together. It seems clear at this point that he intends on Lletget, Long, and Ream to be part of World Cup Qualifying. Also just because someone is part of WCQ does not mean they need to be on the actual World Cup Roster.

bjelks
Post #228
Sunday March 28, 2021 11:01pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 2,043
Original post from Kamphgruppe

I have to disagree here. Sometimes better players do not give you a better chance of winning because for whatever reason they don't jive with the team, don't have the experience etc. If GB is planning on these players playing in actual WCQ games then it is vital that they get minutes together. It seems clear at this point that he intends on Lletget, Long, and Ream to be part of World Cup Qualifying. Also just because someone is part of WCQ does not mean they need to be on the actual World Cup Roster.


Please tell us a real life example of how picking lesser players has helped the usa or any other country win a major trophy.

Again what's the point of picking guys to qualify that aren't the best available and picking them up for the wc

What if we don't qualify like we did last time because of this senselessness?

Sorry there's no actual logic or evidence to support your opinion
goalsense
Kamphgruppe
Michigan
Post #229
Sunday March 28, 2021 11:14pm

Joined Jul 2012
Total Posts: 1,284
Original post from bjelks

Please tell us a real life example of how picking lesser players has helped the usa or any other country win a major trophy.

Again what's the point of picking guys to qualify that aren't the best available and picking them up for the wc

What if we don't qualify like we did last time because of this senselessness?

Sorry there's no actual logic or evidence to support your opinion


In a series of experiments, researchers at Columbia University and other institutions picked apart the relationship between talent and team performance in sports by examining professional athletes playing in the National Basketball League, Premier League and Major League Baseball. To identify elite players, the researchers used a set of criteria in each league - in the NBA, for example, players were ranked via their Estimated Wins Added, a statistic used to approximate the number of victories a player adds to a team's season total above what a 'replacement player' would produce, along with whether or not they were selected for the league's annual All-Star tournament. Meanwhile, in the Premier League, elite players were chosen by cross-referencing national teams with powerhouse club teams, such as Real Madrid and Chelsea; those who appeared on both lists were considered superstar talent.

Study: If Your Team Has Too Many Superstars, Performance Will Suffer

For all three sports, the researchers calculated the percentage of 'elite' players' on each team, and then compared that number to the team's overall performance

The results varied by sport. In baseball, the more talent the better: Team performance continued to improve as the percentage of elite players on a team climbed.

But in basketball and soccer, this steady upward trend didn't hold - instead, the researchers found that while the addition of talent was initially beneficial to a team's performance, there was a saturation point. Once a team's ratio of elite players to non-elite ones surpassed approximately 2:1, returns began to diminish. Not only that, but basketball and soccer teams with the highest percentage of top athletes had, on average, worse win-loss records than teams with a more mixed roster.

The study's authors chalk this difference up to the inherent difference in baseball's style of play versus soccer and basketball's: "Prior research suggests that baseball involves much less task interdependence among team members, compared with football and basketball," they wrote.

In other words, basketball and soccer are quintessential team sports, where success depends on players' ability to work as a cohesive unit, while baseball is more about individual performances.

Related: 25 Books on Persuasion, Influence and Understanding Human Behavior

"Our findings reflect the disappointing fact that teams of superstars often fail to live up to expectations," the authors explain. They're talking about sports teams, but their finding can be extrapolated to include any unit that needs to function as a well-integrated whole. Or, as the researchers explain it:

"Just as a colony of high performance chickens competing for dominance suffers decrements in overall egg production and increases in bird mortality, teams with too much talent appear to divert attention away from coordination as team members peck at each other in their attempts to establish intragroup standing."

In other words, too many top-tier employees can cause a team's performance to suffer as high-performance individuals jockey for position within the group. Instead, the authors advise, team-builders should consider pairing high-flying over-achievers with a solid percentage of competent, if not exceptional, workers.

"In many cases, too much talent can be the seed of failure," the study concludes.

The study was first written about in August by The New York Times and surfaced again in Scientific American this week.

No logic or evidence eh?

oldguy
Post #230
Sunday March 28, 2021 11:45pm

Joined Jan 2017
Total Posts: 21
kamphgruppe,

This makes sense. Think about rock and roll supergroups that fell apart. Cream, Yardbirds and others who fell apart because of creative differences. The egos of superstars or those who think they are superstars combined with a desire to play to one's own individual strength and creativity could lead to players not doing what is needed for the team to win.

Know Nothing
Post #231
Monday March 29, 2021 12:11am

Joined Jan 2013
Total Posts: 1,934
It makes sense on club level Kamph, but with internationals it s a bit different. France technically has two squads of superstars.

In the overall scheme of things it is about defining roles and a willingness to do that role for the betterment of the team. In other words, the best teams are full of players who are willing to suppress their egos to get the job done.

bjelks
Post #232
Monday March 29, 2021 12:19am

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 2,043
Kamp you wrote a bunch of words that don't mean you know anything about winning in sports and especially not international football

The teams that win don't have cheerleaders or culture guys on the squad, just guys that can make a difference

I don't give a shit about your studies, tell me an actual team that won A major trophy with clearly lesser options than they were capable of fielding

Time to throw out the silly politics and ask yourself who the best players are and why the fuck aren't they playing?
goalsense
PortCityFan
Louisiana
Post #233
Monday March 29, 2021 3:40am

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 230
Original post from bjelks

Kamp you wrote a bunch of words that don't mean you know anything about winning in sports and especially not international football

The teams that win don't have cheerleaders or culture guys on the squad, just guys that can make a difference

I don't give a shit about your studies, tell me an actual team that won A major trophy with clearly lesser options than they were capable of fielding

Time to throw out the silly politics and ask yourself who the best players are and why the fuck aren't they playing?


So team cohesiveness between 11 players does not matter? It's not a trophy but I do believe the Olympic "dream team", only the best collection of professional basketball players EVER, lost to a group of the best NCAA (amateur) before they went on their miraculous olympic run. The dream team tried to play as a group of individuals instead of a team, they essentially got beat by a bunch of MLS players.
We see other examples in the NFL when owners go for broke signing big name free agents in a win or bust philosophy. The teams almost always bust, excluding the Tampa Bay teams that have tried it, and the teams are blown up the next year.
I would venture to say that Man U is a prime example, and now we see Barcelona as well. Just because you bring in big talent does not mean that it meshes.
Leicester City comes to Mind of a team that has one it all with lesser options, I'm sure Jamie Vardy was on your radar though. Sometimes teams cant afford the best talent, or sometimes the best talent doesn't choose the sport that is important to you....much like in the US.

stoked-3
Post #234
Monday March 29, 2021 4:02am

Joined Mar 2020
Total Posts: 220
Original post from Lilshmike

I'm just gonna come out and say it...

For those of you thinking that GGG is designing a lineup for Lletget or trying to wedge him in any way he can... that's actually dumb.

You guys do realize that hes been playing a 4-3-3 pretty consistently, with a holding 6 and two 8s, right? As have the U23s... which makes sense because GGG already said that the best Olympic eligible players who are available to go to the Olympics would be going. Meaning that they're using the same lineup and formation as the senior team to make for consistency and easier transition between teams. It's not about wedging in one player... it's down to what players are available for selection. Again, all of this makes sense if you think about who we have in the pool and who was available for selection.

I'd rather have Aaronson start over Lletget, but in no way is Berhalter changing the formation to accommodate Lletget. If McKennie was available, Lletget would be on the bench... and the entire formation would stay the exact same. Period.

Seriously, you guys are trying to find someone to blame the coach for. Anything. Grasping at things that aren't even accurate.


No trying to make our team the best possible version it can be while discussion it on a forum with other fans for fun. I get it you like GB and you think everything he does is great, I dont. He maybe a good recruiter, and a good culture builder; but he makes strange decisions. I do give him credit for trying new formations but he makes strange roster/lineup decisions.

Your statement SL would be benched may not be accurate- Did you watch the Whales game? The one I reference where SL flew in to play a false 9, WM was on the pitch and SL started?

In reference to playing U23 playing the same formation as the SR team. In theory and inside a US Soccer board room saying that to your brother during an interview process may seem smart and like a good idea but in reality it didnt work out so well with the stated goal to make the Olympics--this was a GB/JK decision that again sounded great but didnt take into account player personal. Also not sure the U23 played this formation today did they?

So no we are not looking to blame GB for everything but I think most people in US Soccer, like me, think we can do big things at 2022 and I dont want GB to screw it up-frankly I think we will do fine even if GB does make stupid choices just based on the talent we have-but if he can put the right players on the field and play to their strengths we can make a run.

When I see Tim Ream and Aaron long starting over EPB,Richards,brooks I can't help but question GB decision making. I actually dont think Long is as bad as most do on this board BUT he is in preseason, you always talk about form and club play-what has he done in the last 3 months that deserves a call up let a lone PT over a guy like EPB who has been playing great, or Richards who you know plays on a mid table team in a top 5 league, or brooks who I think his club is top 5?

What did Acosta do last game that showed he deserved the start over LDT?
Would it have been better to start LDT or Aaronson over Acosta, sure it may not be their desired spot but why Acosta and why did it take so long to sub him out today-he sucked.

Owen is getting sporadic mins in a good league-Acosta is in preseason why no mins for Owen

Was it preplanned to have Dest play limited mins? Bc we took off a world class player, why?

Since you think I hate MLS guys. Aaronsons limited play last game showed he is ready to be on this team, now playing overseas he will refine his game-he deserved the start or LDT

We are close to having a solid 23-we need to learn when to drop guys like Ream, Acosta etc I am actually fine with SL being include in camps and in games if there are injuries he has shown well when he has played, BUT there are better choices--so they need to see game time so we can round out who our starting 11 are but more importantly the backups-in WQC and in WC there will be injuries, cards suspensions so games like this are great for experimenting; good for GB for doing so just that with his formation-just pick better personnel

db707
Post #235
Monday March 29, 2021 4:38am

Joined Oct 2013
Total Posts: 1,133
Original post from blaise213

Robinson let up on the pressure because he was still limping from the previous foul but he held his own. Should've had a goal at the end


He did get fouled on that play and it contributed to both his miss and the goal I think. But whatever. Robinson's a good creator but his finishing has always been poor every time I see him, fortunately it's not a factor very often. I mean it's not Bedoya-level bad, but still bad.

Lilshmike
Post #236
Monday March 29, 2021 3:10pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 1,628
Original post from stoked-3

No trying to make our team the best possible version it can be while discussion it on a forum with other fans for fun. I get it you like GB and you think everything he does is great, I dont. He maybe a good recruiter, and a good culture builder; but he makes strange decisions. I do give him credit for trying new formations but he makes strange roster/lineup decisions.

Your statement SL would be benched may not be accurate- Did you watch the Whales game? The one I reference where SL flew in to play a false 9, WM was on the pitch and SL started?

In reference to playing U23 playing the same formation as the SR team. In theory and inside a US Soccer board room saying that to your brother during an interview process may seem smart and like a good idea but in reality it didnt work out so well with the stated goal to make the Olympics-this was a GB/JK decision that again sounded great but didnt take into account player personal. Also not sure the U23 played this formation today did they?

So no we are not looking to blame GB for everything but I think most people in US Soccer, like me, think we can do big things at 2022 and I dont want GB to screw it up-frankly I think we will do fine even if GB does make stupid choices just based on the talent we have-but if he can put the right players on the field and play to their strengths we can make a run.

When I see Tim Ream and Aaron long starting over EPB,Richards,brooks I can't help but question GB decision making. I actually dont think Long is as bad as most do on this board BUT he is in preseason, you always talk about form and club play-what has he done in the last 3 months that deserves a call up let a lone PT over a guy like EPB who has been playing great, or Richards who you know plays on a mid table team in a top 5 league, or brooks who I think his club is top 5?

What did Acosta do last game that showed he deserved the start over LDT?
Would it have been better to start LDT or Aaronson over Acosta,
sure it may not be their desired spot but why Acosta and why did it take so long to sub him out today-he sucked.

Owen is getting sporadic mins in a good league-Acosta is in preseason why no mins for Owen

Was it preplanned to have Dest play limited mins? Bc we took off a world class player, why?

Since you think I hate MLS guys. Aaronsons limited play last game showed he is ready to be on this team, now playing overseas he will refine his game-he deserved the start or LDT

We are close to having a solid 23-we need to learn when to drop guys like Ream, Acosta etc I am actually fine with SL being include in camps and in games if there are injuries he has shown well when he has played, BUT there are better choices-so they need to see game time so we can round out who our starting 11 are but more importantly the backups-in WQC and in WC there will be injuries, cards suspensions so games like this are great for experimenting; good for GB for doing so just that with his formation-just pick better personnel
I am not surprised that you are commenting back with a long winded, argument shifting post. I'm going to comment back on the bold text though and address your points.

First and foremost - the point was made by others and yourself that Berhalter was designing a lineup to accommodate Lletget. That's just complete and utter nonsense. Truly, it is. And that is the point I was making.

I don't think Berhalter is great and like everything he does - but that's a nice little line to throw in there when you've got nothing better to lob at a person. I don't need to continually restate my feelings and stance on the guy because either you and others have wildly short term memories, or just want to put words in other peoples mouths. But there are certain things out of his control with respect to player selections, and hes got to roll with it sometimes. I recognize that. You seem not to.

Yeah... if we had a full strength squad available for selection, Lletget would be on the bench. That's really not even much of a debate. That Wales game... yeah, head scratching to put Lletget there, but he was a late addition after Sargent had to pull out, we were lacking in attacking options with Pulisic out as well, with no STs stepping up in the pool at that time, and it was a friendly. This is where you are misguided and quite clearly biased... you want GGG to put out guys YOU want to see, and want him to experiment with players YOU somehow rate, because YOU have watched extensive film on the guys and see them side by side in practice every session. But when he does that and experiments with players who YOU do not approve, then you have an issue. If you want to try something out, you need to give it a go, right? And better to do that in say... I don't know... a friendly, rather than when the games really matter. That's nothing to get uptight about. It makes sense and really is not a big deal.

You mention Ream starting over EPB, Richards and Brooks. First of all... Brooks was only available for the first game. So 33% of your frustration is unfounded right there. I don't rate Ream highly, but hes likely going to stick around through the summer, so I can see how it makes sense to get him out there... plus, in a 3 back system I think that suits him much better. Richards played in the first game, and Ream did not. Richards also was originally only supposed to be called in for the first game, so do you think its likely that Berhalter already had a plan for how to rotate players in the camp given the covid restrictions that limited player availability? I sure do. Why? Because it doesn't take a genius to understand that, and GGG himself stated it. So... that pretty much takes care of 67% of your frustration there and really only leaves EPB. EPB still seems to be one of those guys that is just on the cusp. Would have been nice to see him... but I'm not complaining about it because he won't be a game changers and his position in the pool right now is simply depth.

Acosta was bad... I will give you that. But, on page 9 of this thread, post #126, I said the following:
"Kellyn Acosta is an interesting choice... but given Olympic qualifying, its not surprising because there are a few guys in that group who are in front of him in line who I'm sure would have been called in instead, leaving GGG without many options. He will likely be a Gold Cup guy. I'd bet he plays in place of Adams in the second game."

I also said this in the same post:
"Notice also that our wingers are gone after the first game except Pulisic... makes me think that Musah may play RW in the second game, or GGG experiments with the formation."

We had no DMs available. Adams had to pull out. McKennie was unavailable. We had multiple guys that likely would have gotten called in if not for the Olympics... so what is there really to complain about? GGG is left with a short list of guys to choose from, thats not his fault. And Notice how I called he was likely going to shift Musah or experiment with the formation. Do I have some crystal ball that tells me the future? No. I just connect dots and understand the situation. You have a hard time with that it seems because you get your head too wrapped around the axel with player selections without taking into account all of the shifting variables currently at play.

Acosta was bad, yes... but we had no DMs. Berhalter clearly wants to play with at least 1 holding mid. LDT and Aaronson are not the guys to play that role. I'm fine with his selection for Acosta to start because of the personnel. Nothing to get uptight over. I would have liked to see a sub for him sooner... but I suspect that Berhalter may have told him that this was his chance to play himself into the plans for this summer and gave his some slack on the rope before yanking him out.

Otasowie has played sporadically in the EPL. So what? There are plenty of people who do, and are out of their depth and unable to make it at that level. I'm not saying that he will be one of those guys or that we shouldn't want to keep an eye on him... but you're seeming to imply that just by getting minutes in the EPL make you some automatic locked in started for our national team? Or one of the top 23? Candidly, with all players available, Otasowie likely won't be in the team. Not only that, but you want to see LDT, Aaronson, Musah, Otasowie... all together on the field at the same time? All play the same position? I'm confused, because there are very limited places to fit players on the field and limited minutes to get these guys. And again... were you there watching Otasowie compete against the other players in training? I'm willing to be he still has some work to do before we can reliably throw him in the senior team, sporadic EPL minutes aside.

Yes... Dest was a pre-planned sub. Berhalter mentioned that he was going to be monitoring minutes of some of the players, Pulisic and Dest included. Pulisic got a half last game and a full 90 this game. Dest got a full 90 last game and half this game. This was planned... no sense in getting uptight about it.

I'm cool with dropping some guys, but again... you have to put things into perspective and give the man the benefit of the doubt with some of this due to covid restirctions on players, Olympic qualifying, and schedule congestion. There is a whole lot that is out of GGG's control. Its very possible that guys like Lletget, Acosta, and Ream could get called in, not because they are the main priority and are planned starters - or because Berhalter is designing a lineup to accommodate these guys - but because we have no outlook on how long the covid restrictions are going to last, there could be injuries to other players in the pool or suspensions, travel or club conflicts based on games, etc.

All of this makes sense, has been stated publicly by the coach himself, is totally rational and understandable. Rant over.

cudevil
Post #237
Monday March 29, 2021 5:18pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 1,275
Original post from PortCityFan

So team cohesiveness between 11 players does not matter? It's not a trophy but I do believe the Olympic "dream team", only the best collection of professional basketball players EVER, lost to a group of the best NCAA (amateur) before they went on their miraculous olympic run. The dream team tried to play as a group of individuals instead of a team, they essentially got beat by a bunch of MLS players.
We see other examples in the NFL when owners go for broke signing big name free agents in a win or bust philosophy. The teams almost always bust, excluding the Tampa Bay teams that have tried it, and the teams are blown up the next year.
I would venture to say that Man U is a prime example, and now we see Barcelona as well. Just because you bring in big talent does not mean that it meshes.
Leicester City comes to Mind of a team that has one it all with lesser options, I'm sure Jamie Vardy was on your radar though. Sometimes teams cant afford the best talent, or sometimes the best talent doesn't choose the sport that is important to you....much like in the US.


Cohesiveness matters, of course. But that has far more to do with the personalities of the players than it does their skill level. Cohesiveness suffers when guys won't play a particular role, not because they have elite skill.

Kamphgruppe
Michigan
Post #238
Monday March 29, 2021 6:28pm

Joined Jul 2012
Total Posts: 1,284
Original post from bjelks

Kamp you wrote a bunch of words that don't mean you know anything about winning in sports and especially not international football

The teams that win don't have cheerleaders or culture guys on the squad, just guys that can make a difference

I don't give a shit about your studies, tell me an actual team that won A major trophy with clearly lesser options than they were capable of fielding

Time to throw out the silly politics and ask yourself who the best players are and why the fuck aren't they playing?


Well I think there are multiple examples and I think you know it too so I am not going to even bother.
I guess it boils down to I am not sure why we're nitpicking every player selection and every person that starts so much when we are winning games. Ultimately GB will be judged on how the team performs in games that matter like the Gold Cup. WCQ and the World Cup itself. In the end he is the coach and he can pick whoever he wants to play. I know you have a lot of conspiracy theory's about race and politics etc. I don't believe any of that is true but you do and that is ok In the end we all want the team to win and be competitive with the best teams in the world. It seems to me were headed in that direction, maybe not the way I would have done it but things are so much better than they once were you won't hear me complain.

cudevil
Post #239
Monday March 29, 2021 7:48pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 1,275
Original post from Know Nothing

It makes sense on club level Kamph, but with internationals it s a bit different. France technically has two squads of superstars.

In the overall scheme of things it is about defining roles and a willingness to do that role for the betterment of the team. In other words, the best teams are full of players who are willing to suppress their egos to get the job done.


Would agree with this. International level is closer to college sports, where talent is king.

Lilshmike
Post #240
Monday March 29, 2021 8:17pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 1,628
Original post from cudevil

Would agree with this. International level is closer to college sports, where talent is king.
International is also segmented into 2 systems of thought - qualification for tournaments, and tournaments.

At the end of the day, qualifying is a different beast than a tournament. And tournament rosters, like the WC, tend to look different than qualifying rosters. You need to build a team for a short term tournament run, not a long haul qualifying campaign. You can't really afford to take too many risks during qualifying, but you can in a tournament where its win or bust. This impacts player selection.

They are not the same.

Page 16 of 18
«« First « Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  Next »

THIS WEEK'S HEADLINES

RANDOM TAGS FROM PAST WEEK...