USMNT Falling | Page 6 | The Boneyard

USMNT Falling

CToutlaw34 said:
Big game for the Yanks - even bigger game for GB although the federation has stamped their BS approval in the lead up - the boys NEED to respond well and secure 6 meaningless points out of 6 over the next 5 days.

My XI for Canada based on what's available..

Guzan (ugh)
Yedlin, Brooks, Ream, Dest
McKennie, Yueill, Arriola
Boyd, Sargent, Morris

idk. god speed, kids.
Expand ...

If Sargent is on the bench and Zardes is starting (heck, throw in Wil Trap, too), I am rooting for the Canadians in the blind hope that a loss here will get Greg fired. Considering who Greg's brother is and the MLS factor, I have a better chance of making the starting XI myself than that happening.
 
Here's hoping

Guzan
Yedlin - Long - Brooks - Dest
Morales
McKennie - Lletget??
Morris - Sargent - Arriola

About the best we can do with what's in camp. :(
 
I hope the boys lose tonight. They will be better off in the long run.
 
Morris is actually been playing well the last few games for USMNT, though against middle-tier teams.
 
USA won 4-1. Canada played horrible, though it was good to see the US players actually motivated to do something. Very worried that this win will give Berhalter a very undeserved breather. USMNT can't afford to figure out that he actually isn't a good coach when a Cup bid is on the line as the team is playing at Estadio Azteca surrounded by 90,000 screaming Mexican fans against a superior side.
 
Last edited:
I watched the second half and USA looked pretty meh. They could barely string together any possession. From the halftime show, it sounded like we just scored on every opportunity we got.
 
We still have the same fundamental problems. Losing to Canada was yet another low water mark.
 
Let's stipulate it was Canada where the B team should win by 3.

Guzan is fine but we need better for qualifying. The guy will be 85 in 2020.

D was OK if unchallenged, but at least is was a legit lineup. Of the four Ream had the best overall game IMO. Brooks too many fouls and Dest looking shaky as a defender, but at least he's fast. I'd still throw him out there until he shows he's over his head. Long was fine, but until I see him consistently against better teams, I'm not gifting him a starting spot. I think Yedlin and Dest are eventually the fullbacks or whatever GGG is calling the wide defensive players. My biggest peave with the entire federation is not settling on a CB pairing.

Yueill had a decent game, did his job and wasn't slow . Already puts him ahead of Trapp and Bradley IMO. This is Adams spot if he ever comes back, but I'm OK putting him on the squad until he shows he's over his head. McKennie had a horrible match, the giveaways were terrible and he didn't do much on either end. Lletget, however, showed quite a bit. I still like pairing Boyd and Arriola with CP, but he is improving and making a case. Morris was also in fine form, but I feel like he is limited against better sides. I'd still like to try him as a false 9. He is strong physically and can move, even if it's not fast. He also has better ball skills than any of the other options. I feel his skills on the wing are better performed by other people. And we still have a gaping hole at striker.

Yes, Zardes had two goals. The first one was a tap in and the second a lucky bounce, but credit for putting them in the back of the net (ahem Wolo). In the run of play he just doesn't help create chances.

Any win over Cuba nets them top of the group, which is all we really wanted out of this.
 
Jackson Yueill has continued to show that he belongs in that midfield
 
Brooks may foul too much but he is an imposing presence. He keeps things calm, he is in the right places, usually makes the right plays, and adds a dimension of toughness we lack.
 
Palatine said:
Brooks may foul too much but he is an imposing presence. He keeps things calm, he is in the right places, usually makes the right plays, and adds a dimension of toughness we lack.
Expand ...

Also an aerial threat. He’s the second most valuable American in World Football.

We also should bring Fabian Johnson back. He plays for an actual Champions League team.
 
SubbaBub said:
Let's stipulate it was Canada where the B team should win by 3.
Expand ...
True, but with Steffen, Sargent and Pulisic, we lost 2-0 to this Canadian team a month ago.
 
The (second) Canada game reminded me of MLS from a few years ago. Neither team was precise with passes. Possession for either team seemed to end after three passes, max. The US did have some okay goals, though. But it doesn't make me think either of those teams are particularly good.

I thought the pass-back call against Canada was interesting. At first I thought it was clever what the defender did (juggling the ball to head it back to the goalie). Credit the ref for knowing that's still illegal, but how did it take so long to give a card to the Canada goalie who went ballistic, and then he should've gotten a red for grabbing/bumping the ref. Same thing with placing the ball at the corner of the 6 yard box. I didn't know that rule (either did the announcers or the Canadian players). Incidentally, crappy job by the US on that set piece.
 
Chuck said:
The (second) Canada game reminded me of MLS from a few years ago. Neither team was precise with passes. Possession for either team seemed to end after three passes, max. The US did have some okay goals, though. But it doesn't make me think either of those teams are particularly good.

I thought the pass-back call against Canada was interesting. At first I thought it was clever what the defender did (juggling the ball to head it back to the goalie). Credit the ref for knowing that's still illegal, but how did it take so long to give a card to the Canada goalie who went ballistic, and then he should've gotten a red for grabbing/bumping the ref. Same thing with placing the ball at the corner of the 6 yard box. I didn't know that rule (either did the announcers or the Canadian players). Incidentally, crappy job by the US on that set piece.
Expand ...
Although I teach that passback situation to all the new refs I have, it's the first time I've ever seen it done at this level (where they should know better). And then they didn't know about IFK's inside the Goal Area being moved out to the 6. Bizarre they were unaware at this level.

As for the USA's execution, I doubt they really worked on that situation. Pretty much making it up on the spot. Best situation is just aim at the wall and hope it ricochets off someone into the goal.
 
meyers7 said:
Although I teach that passback situation to all the new refs I have, it's the first time I've ever seen it done at this level (where they should know better). And then they didn't know about IFK's inside the Goal Area being moved out to the 6. Bizarre they were unaware at this level.

As for the USA's execution, I doubt they really worked on that situation. Pretty much making it up on the spot. Best situation is just aim at the wall and hope it ricochets off someone into the goal.
Expand ...
I wondered if there was a language barrier. If a ref tells you "sorry, that's not the rule. The rule says that's an illegal touch," then that should end the conversation. Does the ref HAVE to explain, no, but it seemed like an easy thing to clear up. It's not like the Canadian player tried to say he didn't play it on his fee first. They just didn't know the rule.

Re the US play. Totally understand not working on set plays at the 6, but it's not unheard of to have close-up indirect kicks. I thought professionals would do better. Especially since they had like 4 minutes to discuss while Canada argued. I think it shows the lack of creativity that plagues the US. I agree with the blast since it's hard to imagine it wouldn't hit someone. I'm also fine with one of the two on the ball nudging it a rotation (or whatever is considered a proper touch). Helps clear up some of the clog when the D runs to the ball, and makes it a goal if it just happens to go in without another touch.
 
Chuck said:
I wondered if there was a language barrier. If a ref tells you "sorry, that's not the rule. The rule says that's an illegal touch," then that should end the conversation. Does the ref HAVE to explain, no, but it seemed like an easy thing to clear up. It's not like the Canadian player tried to say he didn't play it on his fee first. They just didn't know the rule.

Re the US play. Totally understand not working on set plays at the 6, but it's not unheard of to have close-up indirect kicks. I thought professionals would do better. Especially since they had like 4 minutes to discuss while Canada argued. I think it shows the lack of creativity that plagues the US. I agree with the blast since it's hard to imagine it wouldn't hit someone. I'm also fine with one of the two on the ball nudging it a rotation (or whatever is considered a proper touch). Helps clear up some of the clog when the D runs to the ball, and makes it a goal if it just happens to go in without another touch.
Expand ...
Usually a yard or 2 either side on the first touch won't buy you much, cause the wall or a runner will be coming to almost the same spot. One idea I wouldn't mind seeing on something from the 6 is playing the ball back 3-4-5? yards to give more space to get the shot off. Then maybe the player could just roof it???

But agree the USMNT should probably be able come up with something better than a U12 team would do.
 
meyers7 said:
True, but with Steffen, Sargent and Pulisic, we lost 2-0 to this Canadian team a month ago.
Expand ...

yeah, they all looked confused. Nobody knows what to do on or off the ball in Berhalter’s Rube Goldberg system.
 
Watching v Cuba, I feel like I'm watching a HS game. No crowd in the bleachers, low camera angle, pitch surrounded by a track.

Super quick score for us, excellent deflection save by Guzan early.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
236
Guests online
1,707
Total visitors
1,943
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,007
Messages
4,378,316
Members
10,170
Latest member
ctfb19382


.
..
Top Bottom