USMNT: Hold My Beer
- Thread starter Titans Bastard
- Start date
I only saw the second half. This was about as bad as this team has looked in a while. Indecisive, passing to the other team, not handling passes when they actually get there. It was really bad. Highlight for me was seeing security shield the bro doing corner kicks. Would have liked to have seen more of that.
I worry that while I like the midfielder options we have individually the actual mix of them may just be off. Pulisic fixes a lot but they really lack for that player who stitches it all together and controls tempo and space. That elusive pausa, the ability to calm everything down and bring the attackers and supporting defenders in. Everything is still so naive, ball to feet turn and everyone run. Defenders defend and attackers attack and you play one role or the other. It has plagued us for a long time and I’m not interested in overreacting to a single match on the road but I was really disappointed in the approach more than the results.
Aaronson at the 8 is also on my list of things I wish Berhalter would stop trying. Every time he’s at the 8 with the US he’s looked pretty bad and on the wing he’s been consistently dangerous.
Not sure how much is chalked up to rotation needs, but too many players not in their best positions. Dest at LB, Aaronson as an 8, Acosta as an RB because the only two natural RBs on the roster had started and needed to both be subbed off.
It wasn’t quite Klinsmann confusing, the weaker positions for players still mostly made sense, but it edged further into that direction than I like the more than I think about it.
Not sure how much is chalked up to rotation needs, but too many players not in their best positions. Dest at LB, Aaronson as an 8, Acosta as an RB because the only two natural RBs on the roster had started and needed to both be subbed off.
It wasn’t quite Klinsmann confusing, the weaker positions for players still mostly made sense, but it edged further into that direction than I like the more than I think about it.
El Salvador is most certainly not a horrible team. The U.S. has a few wins there, as many draws, and they're looking a lot friskier this cycle than they have in a while.
Which is not to say that I'm happy with the result, especially given the substantial advantage in quality of chances for the U.S. (1.68 xG for the U.S. to something like 0.28 xG for E.S.). I'm just not tearing my hair out over it, especially on a day when one of the potential competitors for a qualification spot dropped points at home.
I didn't feel like anyone for the U.S. played really well. I guess I'd have to say Miles and Ream, since they got the clean sheet. Turner had that one flubbed touch that went out for a corner but otherwise was on top of everything.
Last edited:
I think this is a really young team that clearly didn’t play up to expectations or capability last night. Touches were awful and a lot of giveaways before even controlling the ball. Lots of long opportunistic passes that also went straight to the feet of El Salvador, often right after the US did all the hard work gaining possession, only to give the ball right back. And just not enough linking in the midfield and movement off the ball. Adams was good. McKennie had 20 minutes of good. Ream was fine. Other than them, no one brought their game.
Agree with all of that, and yet that leaves me with hope. Nine players making their debut in world cup qualifying on the road with a not socially distance crowd. To come away with a point is fine. If they can get three points at home against Canada in a much more friendly environment, they'll be sitting in decent shape. The experience factor alone after this window will hopefully be dividends. Even someone like Dest who had played in some big matches showed a few niggles of the moment.
For all the complaints, which are legit, it was one of three missed open headers away from three points, job done.
The morning after it’s also impressive that this young squad came out attacking, kept on attacking, and kept a clean sheet on the road.
Yes. First game, got a point in a hostile venue, a run-out for some of the newbies, it's all good. Hopefully Berhalter got some idea of what some of these guys can't do.
Four points in the next two games, I'd live with. Mexico was the only winner and that only barely.
FWIW, El Salvador yesterday, Nashville Sunday, and at Honduras on Wednesday - that's fucking brutal.
Having the day to sober up and think this over, and apologies for the lack of brevity:
1. I don't question the hustle or effort of the team, they pressed high most of the game (outside of a couple of spells) and won a lot of challenges. To me, that was a positive and has been a positive for a while under Gregg. Defensively the team was solid, and I don't mean that strictly in terms of the defenders and GK. I thought for the most part all of the players worked hard on the defensive end and did a good job.
2. We look like absolute shit when we have the ball, like the players have no clue what they're supposed to do with it once they get it. I understand that there is limited time for the team to be together and gel, but that is true for every team in the tournament. Pretty consistently the only chances for the US come from set pieces. Nothing from open play. With the attacking talent the US has, that is not acceptable.
3. The US needs a coherent system and style reflective of the top players in the pool. Think Spain in 2010 who played similar to Barca where most of their top players played or Brazil 1994 who played much more pragmatically and with less flair than most Brazilian teams. France in 1998 and 2018 were two very different teams. The system and style of these teams were built around the top players. I feel like what Gregg wants to do (possess the ball, "unbalance" the opponent with passing) is not playing to the strengths of the top players in the pool except Dest, who oddly enough looks about the worst of the best players. He's forcing players into his system instead of building something around the players he has at his disposal. It's the difference between a club coach and a national team coach. In all fairness, the high press the US used most of the game is something that most of these players are asked to do for their clubs. I'm more focused on what is going on when we get the ball.
4. Too many players played out of their best or most natural positions. I believe @cromulence has some specific thoughts about this. The substitutions by and large made no sense except for bringing in Pefok. Combining with thought #3- just put players where they play with their clubs and ask them to do the same thing that they do for their clubs. Definitely not a hard and fast rule, but if you follow it more times than not, good things will happen.
5. If we want to be a legit soccer nation, a 0-0 draw in El Salvador is not good enough. Period. Perhaps I am over-ranking the US, but I put us in the fringe top 15 team range in the world. I also put Germany, Uruguay and Colombia there right now. Would any of those teams say a tie in El Salvador is good enough? Hell no, and neither should we. If we want to be with these other countries, we need to start to act like it too.
1. I don't question the hustle or effort of the team, they pressed high most of the game (outside of a couple of spells) and won a lot of challenges. To me, that was a positive and has been a positive for a while under Gregg. Defensively the team was solid, and I don't mean that strictly in terms of the defenders and GK. I thought for the most part all of the players worked hard on the defensive end and did a good job.
2. We look like absolute shit when we have the ball, like the players have no clue what they're supposed to do with it once they get it. I understand that there is limited time for the team to be together and gel, but that is true for every team in the tournament. Pretty consistently the only chances for the US come from set pieces. Nothing from open play. With the attacking talent the US has, that is not acceptable.
3. The US needs a coherent system and style reflective of the top players in the pool. Think Spain in 2010 who played similar to Barca where most of their top players played or Brazil 1994 who played much more pragmatically and with less flair than most Brazilian teams. France in 1998 and 2018 were two very different teams. The system and style of these teams were built around the top players. I feel like what Gregg wants to do (possess the ball, "unbalance" the opponent with passing) is not playing to the strengths of the top players in the pool except Dest, who oddly enough looks about the worst of the best players. He's forcing players into his system instead of building something around the players he has at his disposal. It's the difference between a club coach and a national team coach. In all fairness, the high press the US used most of the game is something that most of these players are asked to do for their clubs. I'm more focused on what is going on when we get the ball.
4. Too many players played out of their best or most natural positions. I believe @cromulence has some specific thoughts about this. The substitutions by and large made no sense except for bringing in Pefok. Combining with thought #3- just put players where they play with their clubs and ask them to do the same thing that they do for their clubs. Definitely not a hard and fast rule, but if you follow it more times than not, good things will happen.
5. If we want to be a legit soccer nation, a 0-0 draw in El Salvador is not good enough. Period. Perhaps I am over-ranking the US, but I put us in the fringe top 15 team range in the world. I also put Germany, Uruguay and Colombia there right now. Would any of those teams say a tie in El Salvador is good enough? Hell no, and neither should we. If we want to be with these other countries, we need to start to act like it too.
I look at this game as a reflection of how young they are. You need a spine down the middle of older experienced players to control the speed and distribution of the game. I think Reyna could be the one to develop into a play maker as he is composed on the ball. Someone needs to be the captain on the field who will direct the players.
I saw a lot of pop up balls from miss-timed traps and players failing to move into passing lanes so they got into the habit of trying to go up and over. Waiting for the ball to come down gives the defense time to organize and control the passing lanes.This also degenerated into more up and away crosses rather than low driven balls.
I saw a lot of pop up balls from miss-timed traps and players failing to move into passing lanes so they got into the habit of trying to go up and over. Waiting for the ball to come down gives the defense time to organize and control the passing lanes.This also degenerated into more up and away crosses rather than low driven balls.
Columbia literally played to a draw last night against a team ranked lower than El Salvador. It happens.
Ignoring the reliance on FIFA rankings, that’s not the point. It’s the acceptance of some that it’s an ok result because, hey, at least we didn’t lose. I’m pretty sure nobody in Sons of Carlos Valderrama thinks tying away at Bolivia is solid.
What was wrong with them? They seemed to be mainly focused on getting fresh legs in for the players who do the most running. The players who weren't swapped out were the CBs, Adams, McKennie, and Reyna. Reyna is the only one who I thought might have been in line to be replaced. It seemed to me to be of a piece with our Gold Cup strategy of taking advantage of our superior squad depth to try to get a late result.
I don't think anybody is happy with a draw, but it's not a terrible result. Especially considering the xG edge indicating a significant advantage in number and quality of chances created (yes, we do need to convert them into goals).
I think you're confusing folks saying a point on the road is acceptable in this situation *as it pertains to advancement* with people thinking they played well and it's all fine and no changes are needed.
That's not even brining up the xG numbers, which shows the US played better than the result.
If any big European side played what ever we’re calling this successor to the Hex, with the grueling travel, heat, poor pitches, hostile crowds, hackery, CONCACAF refs etc. they would not get 3 points every game away. If this is our best away performance it’s a problem. It probably won’t be.
I agree with your points regarding: how he sets them up though.
Edit: formatting
Last edited:
We have a lot of young talent, but young talent is inconsistent. There is a learning process that comes with nine guys making WCQ debuts, and I think we have to live with that. As noted, the USMNT played a game that was tight at the back, and looked disjointed in possession and in the attack. There are issues, but in CONCACAF away teams rarely look good.
I don't think anybody should have to like that performance. It's frustrating because even with an unimpressive showing the USMNT absolutely could have won that game. I don't think it's worth angsting about it too much. Learning is an uneven process.
On the same night, Canada drew the sort of home game they need to win to qualify, and Mexico needed a last-minute winner, at home, to beat a team missing a dozen guys because of the EPL's intransigence. Nothing is as easy as it should be on paper in WCQ.
I don't think anybody should have to like that performance. It's frustrating because even with an unimpressive showing the USMNT absolutely could have won that game. I don't think it's worth angsting about it too much. Learning is an uneven process.
On the same night, Canada drew the sort of home game they need to win to qualify, and Mexico needed a last-minute winner, at home, to beat a team missing a dozen guys because of the EPL's intransigence. Nothing is as easy as it should be on paper in WCQ.
When did 1.6 xG become a good outcome? The xG says the US was a bit better but it hardly paints a picture of dominance squandered. Yes, a few headers could have gone their way and they probably should have nicked the points out of fashioning those chances but it would only have been a bit of a smash and grab. Too much of the discourse here reads like it was 3.5-.25 xG and those matches happen but this wasn’t that type of match at all
of course the point is fine in the context of qualification but when you bring in your European based contingent I’d really expect to see a far more cultured approach. McKennie spent a season playing for Pirlo at Juve, Reyna has been in one of the best Bundesliga sides for a while now. And so on up and down the roster. I’d expect these players to have picked up some of the tactical intelligence and composure that playing at a higher level than this match provides to help steady the match and make it a matter of when, not if, the goal will come. They had under 50% possession yesterday and that’s not remotely OK to me. They rushed everything and got into awful patterns of hit and chase. I don’t particularly care if they bang their heads against a bus for 90 minutes and draw but if they can’t control the match against El Salvador with their first choice midfield then I’m definitely concerned with what lies ahead. There will be plenty of matches where they need to soak up pressure and hit on the counter but those should come against Mexico or in the World Cup.
of course the point is fine in the context of qualification but when you bring in your European based contingent I’d really expect to see a far more cultured approach. McKennie spent a season playing for Pirlo at Juve, Reyna has been in one of the best Bundesliga sides for a while now. And so on up and down the roster. I’d expect these players to have picked up some of the tactical intelligence and composure that playing at a higher level than this match provides to help steady the match and make it a matter of when, not if, the goal will come. They had under 50% possession yesterday and that’s not remotely OK to me. They rushed everything and got into awful patterns of hit and chase. I don’t particularly care if they bang their heads against a bus for 90 minutes and draw but if they can’t control the match against El Salvador with their first choice midfield then I’m definitely concerned with what lies ahead. There will be plenty of matches where they need to soak up pressure and hit on the counter but those should come against Mexico or in the World Cup.
Update: this guy decided to peace out of Chile camp before any of their WCQs.
Not sure another call will be forthcoming any time soon...
I don't think that was the full first choice midfield for the U.S. (specifically I don't think Aaronson is the "A" starter---in fact, I'm pretty sure that was his first start at that position for us).
Granted, I think we would all consider McKennie to be first choice, and he was as responsible as anyone for our inability to control the match.
Looking forward to Sunday, I imagine we’ll see Dest switching to RB, Robinson at LB, Brooks in for Ream, Acosta in for Aaronson, and (please be fit) Pulisic in for Konrad.
I am absolutely terrified of the Dest vs. Davies matchup, but Sergino should not have any sort of role as a LB and I think he’s probably still too talented to leave on the bench.
I came into this window thinking how important it would be to throw Pepi on as a late sub and lock him down for three years. But now I’m not convinced that he isn’t our best available striker.
I am absolutely terrified of the Dest vs. Davies matchup, but Sergino should not have any sort of role as a LB and I think he’s probably still too talented to leave on the bench.
I came into this window thinking how important it would be to throw Pepi on as a late sub and lock him down for three years. But now I’m not convinced that he isn’t our best available striker.
I agree with this. Yes, results won't always reflect the performance and a 0-0 score line can mean a lot of different things. It was the performance that unsettles me more so than the result itself. We are well aware that the pitch was a mess, that the environment was hostile, and that this team is young. When they don't play well it's fair to ask why that was the case and to be critical of the performance. The first ten minutes were along the lines of what I would expect from this team.
Was the game hard because the USMNT didn't play well, or did the USMNT not play well because the game was hard?
If you acknowledge that conditions were difficult, but then ask why they didn't play as well as they would play in LA Galaxy's stadium or somewhere in that ballpark, then are you really acknowledging that conditions were difficult?
Players playing worse than their club history suggests is the core of "road WCQs are hard especially in CONCACAF conditions", IMO. Figuring out how to win games that more about matching intensity and winning cage matches is part of the learning process for a group of young players. It's a somewhat different game than the high-falutin' champagne football of Champions League clubs, that places a different set of demands on players.
As an example, Dest's decision to approach a road WCQ in CONCACAF like it was a pickup basketball game was a poor choice and created some cascading problems that affected our midfield and Konrad in front of him. He will learn, or be benched for future road WCQs.
Still, the USMNT had plenty of opportunity to win ugly, but didn't finish their chances. IMO, that's not a bad start to the WCQ career of most of these players. I want to see these guys raise the level of what they show on the road as time goes forward, but basically conceding no danger while having a few clear chances to win is not bad. Most of the time one of those chances gets finished and there's a lot less angst.
If you acknowledge that conditions were difficult, but then ask why they didn't play as well as they would play in LA Galaxy's stadium or somewhere in that ballpark, then are you really acknowledging that conditions were difficult?
Players playing worse than their club history suggests is the core of "road WCQs are hard especially in CONCACAF conditions", IMO. Figuring out how to win games that more about matching intensity and winning cage matches is part of the learning process for a group of young players. It's a somewhat different game than the high-falutin' champagne football of Champions League clubs, that places a different set of demands on players.
As an example, Dest's decision to approach a road WCQ in CONCACAF like it was a pickup basketball game was a poor choice and created some cascading problems that affected our midfield and Konrad in front of him. He will learn, or be benched for future road WCQs.
Still, the USMNT had plenty of opportunity to win ugly, but didn't finish their chances. IMO, that's not a bad start to the WCQ career of most of these players. I want to see these guys raise the level of what they show on the road as time goes forward, but basically conceding no danger while having a few clear chances to win is not bad. Most of the time one of those chances gets finished and there's a lot less angst.
That's exactly my point TB. Individual games like Dest's should be criticized*. Yes, they are young,. Yes, the field sucked. Yes, it's CONCACAF. There were a few good individual performances and several poor ones (Dest, Aaronson, Yedlin, and Sargent). The end result was that the on field performance was below what I would expect (yes, again, even in that environment). Just using your example of Dest, I think it's fair to say that Serginho Dest looked really bad out there regardless of the conditions. Was it his attitude? Was it because he was being asked to play on the left? Inexperience? Too much travel? Are there other things going on that played a role? In the end, we would expect him to play better and he did not. Can we agree on that point?
Saying the field was poor does to not give a free pass for some of the poor performances. There was a great ten minute spell to start the game. On the same field. In the same stadium. It's unfair to expect that performance throughout the entire 90, but it shows that the team can play better in those conditions because they in fact did so (just for a small portion of the game). Individual players like Reyna, both CBs-and I questioned the inclusion of Ream- and Adams had good games. Others did not, and the resulting performance was below what we should expect.
*Edited to add that I mean be critical of the performance and ask questions about it to seek answers, not to slam the kids for a bad game
Saying the field was poor does to not give a free pass for some of the poor performances. There was a great ten minute spell to start the game. On the same field. In the same stadium. It's unfair to expect that performance throughout the entire 90, but it shows that the team can play better in those conditions because they in fact did so (just for a small portion of the game). Individual players like Reyna, both CBs-and I questioned the inclusion of Ream- and Adams had good games. Others did not, and the resulting performance was below what we should expect.
*Edited to add that I mean be critical of the performance and ask questions about it to seek answers, not to slam the kids for a bad game
Giving Pepi a start at the 9 might not be that crazy. I expect we see Pefok, though.
Would it be totally crazy to run out a 3-4-3 without a true center forward? Maybe Aaronson, Pulisic, Reyna with lots of interchange on the attack against Canada? Dest would bring width on the right, with McKennie and Adams linking up in support.
I'm up for anything that gets our best players in the squad.
Would it be totally crazy to run out a 3-4-3 without a true center forward? Maybe Aaronson, Pulisic, Reyna with lots of interchange on the attack against Canada? Dest would bring width on the right, with McKennie and Adams linking up in support.
I'm up for anything that gets our best players in the squad.
Starting Pepi would be very ballsy and could definitely backfire but I wouldn't call it crazy. I think the above would be pretty crazy, and doubly so to try it in a crucial home WCQ! Trying False 9-by-committee with a bunch of players who don't have a track record of being effective False 9s is way too much for me.
I hope Berhalter gives it some consideration in the future if no one steps up and grabs the CF spot. It's been a revolving door of mediocrity for a while now, and I think it is the natural future of this US team, especially given the skill of our AM/winger types.
At some point, to take the team to the next level, they are going to have to experiment in matches at the highest levels of competition to see what they are capable of. You're probably right that they're not ready for it yet, especially given the compressed training time.
We've talked in the past about how Pulisic is going to have to be ready for this type of attention in CONCACAF. So is Dest.
That's a good thing.
Because they can't float extra defenders at everyone.
The Matt Turner Era continues. Pulisic is TBD for Canada.
View: https://twitter.com/SoccerInsider/status/1434273504325734409
View: https://twitter.com/SoccerInsider/status/1434273504325734409
I'm fully expecting a better performance and result today. Canada will likely bring a strong squad, though. Davies was super dangerous against Honduras, so I wonder if this is the game for 3 CBs. Canada will likely line up in a 3-5-2 or 4-4-2 with Davies and Buchanon/Laryea bombing up the wings, and Larin and David up top. Whatever the case, gotta win at home.
Rumors that there's a hamstring issue. Haven't seen anything definitive.
I'm heading downtown soon for the Outlaws tailgate.
The big question tonight is whether Herdman rotates in advance of a crucial home game against El Salvador in a few days. He's got a hard decision about whether to rest key players vs. the US or risk very tired legs in a must-win game on Wednesday.
Steffen tested positive for COVID; Sean Johnson has joined camp.
View: https://twitter.com/USMNT/status/1434615334925963268
View: https://twitter.com/USMNT/status/1434615334925963268
McKennie was suspended at Juve last season for the same reason.
Kickoff is at 8:12 for the folks who care about precision
View: https://twitter.com/canadasocceren/status/1434652167567253508
looks like a conservative/rotated Canada side with five new starters
looks like a conservative/rotated Canada side with five new starters