Letttssss go!
was hoping for EPB or CCV to start, but oh well
was hoping for EPB or CCV to start, but oh well
US Men's National Team Discussion
- Thread starter TheReligion
- Start date
The drop off from Dest and A. Robinson is massive. Really suffering as a result. That being said, Weah has been fantastic, so much so that I wonder if he moves to no. 9 or if Reyna goes to 8.
Woof. Yedlin is just not a good fit. His lack of actual footballing ability is a limitation.
Uruguay deciding they don’t give a feck about rules by just throwing on an extra sub.
Any players worth looking out for in the American side?
Besides Pulisic, Dest, and Reyna?
Aaronson from Leeds, Robinson from Fulham, Adams from RBL, and Mussah from Valencia.
Thank you, I make sure to keep an eye on them.
I'm not really impressed by dest to be honest, we'll see what happens to him I suppose.
for the US (when played on the right!!!) Dest has been one of the best, if not the best chance creators in the region.
Disappointing game. Thought the US edged the first half. Subs killed the second half.
I don't watch the us international games, just his club performances for barca.
I'll be watching them in the world cup so he could impress me there, hope he turns it around in barca, was highly touted i remember.
Turns out it was agreed at half time that given the heat they would loosen up numbers. Seems nobody told your manager, clearly.
Uruguay deciding they don’t give a feck about rules by just throwing on an extra sub.
Not that Alonso doesn't have form for that. In the Chilean league he once subbed off Marcelo Romero and later subbed on Clever Romero, both of course just being the one and only Clever Marcelo Romero.
Killed the game, but I don't think the extra sub had any bearing on that. Was a good run out for us to see the drop off from the starting XI
Thanks!Turns out it was agreed at half time that given the heat they would loosen up numbers. Seems nobody told your manager, clearly.
Not that Alonso doesn't have form for that. In the Chilean league he once subbed off Marcelo Romero and later subbed on Clever Romero, both of course just being the one and only Clever Marcelo Romero.
Killed the game, but I don't think the extra sub had any bearing on that. Was a good run out for us to see the drop off from the starting XI
a decent game, but the US clearly suffered from missing 4 starters. It Was a friendly so it means very little, but I was was disappointed by Nunez after all the hype linking him to Utd I expect something, but he gsve absolutely nothing.
looking my beyond tonight, where are you worried for the WC? As an uninformed outsider I would point to you back line, but I am interested in your far more informed opinion.
Wish I had any faith in berhalter not to be a dumbass. So much quality in high leagues to call on but can guarantee he finds a way to fit his boys in the squad.
We only had two regular starters on the pitch (Godín and Gímenez) and we tested 3-5-2/5-3-2 which isn't our regular formation.
Not much to read into any of that other than Ugarte having a good game. I think that nails him into the 23-squad. Former United RB Guille Varela called up out of nowhere also made a case for himself.
As you point out, Nuñez offered very little. You would think Weah was the better player watching that.
Ugarte did look decent. Weah did look quite good, but he always does for the US. He also finished the season on fire for his club.
While the US had more regulars (taking your word on that) starting I would argue that, because of our lack of depth, the missing players had a huge impact on how we played. Dest and Robinson are singular in our player pool in their ability to progress up the wings from the FB position. Both Weah and especially Pulisiclike to come inside, so the FB’s role In occupying the wide spaces is critical. Scally is a right back (who played on the left in the first half tonight) and Yedlin is very limited. Also, Reyna’s ability is unique for our pool In a way no player has ever been. This is not to make excuses, only to point out our depth does not allow an margin.
The second half was stupid and I will pretend it never happened.
So I've been asking myself for a while: shouldn't the USMNT try to join another federation to prepare for their home world cup? Teams relocating is a normal thing in the US anyway, it would reduce traveling for their top players, the team would get tested at a much higher level and with a 24 team EUROs the US should actually have a shot at qualifying, fitting them into the nations league would be even easier. And UEFA would totally love the idea.
Depth is very much what we were testing too. Not sure how much was players or the setup, but my takeaway is we should be fine as far as playing out games is concerned. A bit short at CB and upfront, could use at least one more top/at peak quality player.
They haven't decided yet, but as it stands we will have the recent format with everyone on the bench and truckloads of subs. That favours teams with great depth like France, particularly these days with constant pressing being on the cards.
I hope this is not the format. As was seen yesterday, the introduction of large numbers of subs kills the momentum of a game. I get the player safety aspect, but fundamentally changing how the game is played as yet another mitigation factor for the disaster that was awarding Qatar the WC is just stupid.
Even if this was possible I don't think the US would ever do it as it would mean leaving Mexico and, to a lesser extent Canada, behind. Those are our massive historical rivals, and in the case of Mexico, a cash cow for US Soccer. From a moral perspective it would also kill CONCACAF, especially if Mexico came too.
This is actually a very silly idea. No thanks.
The two biggest concerns right now for the USMNT are finding a goal scorer at the 9 who can score on the international level and finding a CB partner for Zimmerman
Also, why does it seem like every home game has to be played in the rust belt or Tornado Alley? Has a game ever been hosted in Portland or Seattle (2 soccer crazy cities)? Or the NE corridor?
I get the concerns about large away crowds but surely that can be mitigated somehow.
I get the concerns about large away crowds but surely that can be mitigated somehow.
don't recall in portland or seattle simply b/c those are both turf fields....but yes several times in the NE corridor
They could always create something like the "World Series Of Soccer" between those three teams. At some point it has to become stale to only ever play most of your games against Panama tier teams and only face top nations in a competitive setting at the WC.
I've seen the team once in Connecticut, but that was ages ago (may have been a Gold Cup game).
Turf sucks, absolutely. Surprised that those stadiums don't have grass.
My guess as to the location issue is travel. With a large percentage of our players coming over from Europe I think the decision has been made to play games on the east coast or upper midwest. It also helps that those cities, by an large, have lower immigrant populations (compared to CA/NY/TX) and therefore a better chance of being pro-US. I would argue this is not terribly useful in a run up to the WC, although during qualification it is not a bad idea.
There aren't many top tier nations in world football. Odds are you're not facing a lot of them except in a competitive setting. Even if you are a European team. Estonia, Greece, San Marino, so on... Aren't top tier nations.
A better idea would be to merge CONCACAF and CONMEBOL and have some sort of nations league tier setup but that won't happen.
I think you're selling the USMNT a bit short here, I think they'd have a decent chance of breaking into the Wales, Austria, Czech Republic and Hungary tier.
Which would for example mean in the current draw they'd have gotten a group with France, Denmark and Croatia or Spain, Portugal and Switzerland or Italy, Germany and England or Belgium, Netherlands and Poland.
Playing each of them twice in a competitive setting before the World Cup.
Instead it's four friendlies and two competitive games against Grenada and El Salvador.
This WC cycle is a disaster in terms of preparation. In a normal cycle there would be 2-3 friendlies leading into the WC where the US traditionally would schedule teams similar in style/skill to the teams in their group. I don't think the answer is to join UEFA. I agree with @adexkola both that a merger with COMNEBOL makes the most sense and also that it likely would not happen. Honestly, I think COMNEBOL would be more open to it than CONCACAF would. While the US and Mexico would likely still have a decent (but lower) chance to qualify, the next tier of teams (Canada -- yes I know you led the group this year, but I am talking historically--, Panama, Jamaica, Costa Rica) would have their chances cut significantly.
Portland and Seattle almost have to use turf simply b/c of the weather and how much it rains in the northwest
They've played a couple times in Connecticut and a couple of times in the Boston area. They move it around pretty frequently but i think during the summer months, if they play, it should be done in the northeast or northwest simply b/c the temperature is better.
But friendlies aren't the same as games where something is one the line (even if it's only the nations league), are they? And I imagine it doesn't help interest in the team if they only ever play pointless friendlies or other minnows.
No they are not, but they do serve the purpose of letting the team work through things. Besides, based on the way some of the European teams approached this weekends NL games I can't really say they were any more useful than friendlies.
I would also argue that qualifying in CONCACAF is not a walk in the park and is not a pond filled with "minnows". I don't know if their is a UEFA equivalent to going to Mexico City and playing in the Azteca, or Estadio Nacional/Saprissa in San Jose. Those away games, and most away games to be fair, are difficult and serve a purpose in building a team.
I didn't watch all the games, but I had a feeling that Italy and Germany took the game fairly seriously, France pretty much played their best team, too. And I'd say the bigger and the more serious the opponent, the more you learn from a game. I think friendlies sometimes tend to mask certain problems, when the opposition doesn't give it their all.
Come on, if they aren't minnows, then who is? At the last WC Panama and Costa Rica (I know they had that one good tournament) got one point between them. Even Mexico never make it past the first knockout round. If qualifying feels hard that says more about the US team than it says about the competition.
They are absolutely minnows. Its more the case that qualifying in CONCACAF is surprisingly hard simply because the minnows (and, to be far, the US too) resort to huge levels of shithousery, from the pitch conditions to the way matches are often played (tackles flying in everywhere).
It's more of a cauldron than one might think and that does foster a certain mental toughness in the team but it doesn't necessarily prepare you for playing better teams that actually have the ability to beat you with their football.
I am not arguing that CONCACAF is anywhere near UEFA. The top 3 teams in CONCACAF are more in line with the second tier of UEFA, but both regions have their share of Minnows.
Anyways, we are getting off topic which was the suggestion that the US move to UEFA. As long as FIFA separates confederations geographically this should not, and will not, happen. Would it benefit the US to play against higher level competition and for our players to have greatly decreased travel? Absolutely, but isn't that what makes the WC so unique? It gives these regional teams the chance to compete on a global scale. What you are suggestion is an international version of the Super League, with the US added in for $$$$ (not on ability).
Finally, @Powderfinger is correct, the difficulty in qualifying is not down to the skill level of opponents, but to a bunch of other stuff (officiating, cheating, stadiums, weather, fan behavior, etc.). I wish the US did not do it (the game played outside in winter in Minneapolis was a travesty, likewise the infamous snow game in CO) as I do not think it helps us in the long run.
This. CONCACAF officials let so much go. I always joke that "you've been CONCACAFfed" when a player gets taken out by what most would consider a yellow. Most reds require an autopsy. And the pitch conditions in central America and the islands are horrendous most of the time.
That said, at least a larger portion of the US players are now playing in Europe. It's a much better talent pool than in years past.
Aren't the hosts automatically qualified for the WC? So the next time the US team has to qualify for a World Cup would be for 2030. Going by the various external teams that played in the Copa America I assume it's UEFA's business who they want to invite to their tournaments. So would there actually be legal issues if the US stated that it wants to play UEFA tournaments for the next four years to better prepare for their home WC?
And speaking from experience I wouldn't say playing in Europe makes the WC not unique.
To your second point it does lose it's "uniqueness" if you begin playing in a tournament outside your region. If Germany suddenly moved to COMNEBOL and was playing Brazil every year or so wouldn't that make a potential Brazil/Germany WC final lose some of it's novelty? Sure, you would still be excited, but the matchup would not be as mysterious as you likely would have played Brazil 2-3 times in the preceding 12 months. Similar to club football and the champions league.
As for the first point, I think invitations to individual tournaments is fine, just like the US in Copa America a few years ago. It would help with the preparations, especially since the top 3 teams in CONCACAF will not need to qualify for 26. For the long term though I would prefer to stay in CONCACAF and participate in a region that improving yearly. Canada was fantastic and has some real up and coming stars. Likewise, Jamaica, if they can get their shit together, has a great chance to become a solid team.
Whats the expectancy of USA fans for the World Cup ?
- Minimum Expectation is to not embarrass ourselves.
- Rational Expectation is to get out of the group. I think we can as I believe we are at least on par with Wales and Iran.
- Hopeful Expectation is to win a knockout round, but that really is dependent on who we would draw.
- Irrational Expectation is to make it to the semifinals.