As much as I would love some Mexico finishing 4th schaudenfreude, getting thumped by the ticos to help their GD isn't my ideal best case scenario.
***Official USMNT-WCQ Octagonal Thread***
192,686 Views |
3020 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by cruzdoggie
I will give the ticos credit, after match day 8 I projected out the rest of the matches and had them finishing 6th on 12 points. They certainly figured things out.
I've been critical of Gregg at times, and it has been deserved imo. Evaluating national team managers is a difficult task because of how few meaningful games there are.aggiephoenix02 said:Update, Gregg later clarified that he and his coaches pick the captain from the leadership group…aggiephoenix02 said:
About the shifting Captains armband…
Gregg said in his post game interview that Pulisic is on the leadership council, and they (the captain) are picked from that leadership council. Do the coaches or players pick them? Idk.
I'd still prefer one captain…
Edit to add: Gregg said they picked Pulisic this game because of his journey up to this point. The fact that he was a veteran leader, he was on the field when we failed to qualify for the 2018 World Cup played into the decision.
I'm officially all in on Gregg.
Other posters in this board have been very critical of him, but I've always been reserved in my judgment. I always liked him as a player, and knew as a coach it was an on the job training situation.
I'm all in on Gregg…
That said, I think he has made all the right calls in this international window. Messaging about one game at a time, putting out a strong lineup against Mexico and coming home with a crucial point, and his lineup selections for the Panama game obviously paid off.
I'm not all in, but he's definitely earned a reprieve. Our performance at the World Cup will largely end up defining most people's opinions of him.
As I mentioned, yellow card suspensions carry over from the Octagon into the intercontinental playoff but not the WC. Only red card suspensions in qualifying carry over into the WC.
— Brian Sciaretta (@BrianSciaretta) March 28, 2022
- Costa Rica has 9 players sitting on YCs who would miss the playoff with a YC vs. the #USMNT
Good to know as I was trying to figure out which of our players we might consider resting because they were on cards.
Stray thought while going through airport: If the US had lost at Mexico and all other results held, they would have likely needed a result in Costa Rica to finish in top-three.
— Sam Stejskal (@samstejskal) March 28, 2022
That point in the Azteca was huge. Berhalter went for it with his lineup choices, and they paid off.
Interesting thread of data analysis from Paul Carr. He always puts out good content, and its not just homer centric either.
Expected goals for the Ocho so far (up and right = good)...
— Paul Carr (@PaulCarr) March 28, 2022
🇺🇸🇨🇦🇲🇽 Top 3 are clearly the top 3
🇨🇷🇵🇦 Costa Rica might be fortunate to be in 4th place
🇭🇳 🇸🇻 Honduras and El Salvador are essentially swapped from their places in the standings pic.twitter.com/Y1xO43Avp7
This is roughly where I am. I have doubts about the system and tactics we are choosing to employ, and at times his player selection.Kampfers said:I've been critical of Gregg at times, and it has been deserved imo. Evaluating national team managers is a difficult task because of how few meaningful games there are.aggiephoenix02 said:Update, Gregg later clarified that he and his coaches pick the captain from the leadership group…aggiephoenix02 said:
About the shifting Captains armband…
Gregg said in his post game interview that Pulisic is on the leadership council, and they (the captain) are picked from that leadership council. Do the coaches or players pick them? Idk.
I'd still prefer one captain…
Edit to add: Gregg said they picked Pulisic this game because of his journey up to this point. The fact that he was a veteran leader, he was on the field when we failed to qualify for the 2018 World Cup played into the decision.
I'm officially all in on Gregg.
Other posters in this board have been very critical of him, but I've always been reserved in my judgment. I always liked him as a player, and knew as a coach it was an on the job training situation.
I'm all in on Gregg…
That said, I think he has made all the right calls in this international window. Messaging about one game at a time, putting out a strong lineup against Mexico and coming home with a crucial point, and his lineup selections for the Panama game obviously paid off.
I'm not all in, but he's definitely earned a reprieve. Our performance at the World Cup will largely end up defining most people's opinions of him.
I think, on the hypothetical assumption we qualify, how he handles the next 6 months will set us up for success or failure.
He absolutely needs to open the player pool and roster back up. It was understandably limited for qualifying, but he needs to be identifying the players that have either stepped forward over the last year, or have come back from injuries.
The federation needs to get us 6+ friendlies in this timeframe, to give these players gametime in the system. We need camps to get these players in with the current core of players, to see who is truly worthy of the top 23 (and really, the best 11 shouldnt be set in stone either)
Then, when the World Cup itself comes around, you can decide based on form and availability, but I would be very disappointed if there arent at least 3-4 new faces on that roster.
This was the argument against playing the B-team in Azteca. Losing 2-0 away in Mexico would have forced the US to need points against Panama and maybe in CR. And it assumed Canada held serve versus a decent CR playing for their WC lives, which Canada did not do. And more, losing in Mexico would have resulted with less GD which may have been a concern going down to CRfig96 said:Stray thought while going through airport: If the US had lost at Mexico and all other results held, they would have likely needed a result in Costa Rica to finish in top-three.
— Sam Stejskal (@samstejskal) March 28, 2022
That point in the Azteca was huge. Berhalter went for it with his lineup choices, and they paid off.
I'm sure nobody is really thrilled with Berhalter, but it is very, very hard to look at the data and not confront the fact that likely a very large amount of bias against him colors most of our judgement of him.
Here's a list of our last four coaches and their results in points per match.
Berhalter 34-7-8 (2.22)
Arena 81-25-32 (1.94)
Klinnsman 55-16-27 (1.84)
Bradley 43-12-25 (1.76)
In the end our qualification was pretty assured (yes we're going to qualify). It's a possibility that we'll even hit 28 points which is the win every game at home, draw every game on the road threshold in this round. We won the confederation's league trophy, we won it's tournament trophy. The team has been dominant, and only the emergence of a Canadian team at what is likely a high water mark in terms of their pool's ability and experience has stopped that from carrying over to qualification.
Most people also want to act like "ZOMG this the GREATEST team ever, how could we ever lose!" because of high quality some of the players in our pool, but our team is absurdly unbalanced toward youth and inexperience. And then everyone wants to whine and complain that he picks older and more experienced players to fill out the roster and puff out the experience in the lineup because those players suck or play in MLS or whatever rather than call in whoever's "dream team" of 23 kids in Europe just to see them all.
Berhalter hasn't really been around long enough or played any truly huge games outside of the confederation, but thats not exactly something you can judge a guy on until it happens.
A lot of the biases against him also come out in ways that are simply not true. For his whole national team career and the start of his managerial career he was a guy that did it all in Europe, but he coaches and has success in MLS and then gets the big job and now suddenly to everyone he's "just an MLS guy" or whatever. Its asinine.
Here's a list of our last four coaches and their results in points per match.
Berhalter 34-7-8 (2.22)
Arena 81-25-32 (1.94)
Klinnsman 55-16-27 (1.84)
Bradley 43-12-25 (1.76)
In the end our qualification was pretty assured (yes we're going to qualify). It's a possibility that we'll even hit 28 points which is the win every game at home, draw every game on the road threshold in this round. We won the confederation's league trophy, we won it's tournament trophy. The team has been dominant, and only the emergence of a Canadian team at what is likely a high water mark in terms of their pool's ability and experience has stopped that from carrying over to qualification.
Most people also want to act like "ZOMG this the GREATEST team ever, how could we ever lose!" because of high quality some of the players in our pool, but our team is absurdly unbalanced toward youth and inexperience. And then everyone wants to whine and complain that he picks older and more experienced players to fill out the roster and puff out the experience in the lineup because those players suck or play in MLS or whatever rather than call in whoever's "dream team" of 23 kids in Europe just to see them all.
Berhalter hasn't really been around long enough or played any truly huge games outside of the confederation, but thats not exactly something you can judge a guy on until it happens.
A lot of the biases against him also come out in ways that are simply not true. For his whole national team career and the start of his managerial career he was a guy that did it all in Europe, but he coaches and has success in MLS and then gets the big job and now suddenly to everyone he's "just an MLS guy" or whatever. Its asinine.
The point all along was NOT to play a B team. it was to sit certain players so they would for sure be available for Panama. It was never about just conceding the game to Mexico, in fact, the discussion was that you try to get a point in Mexico and do your best to guarantee 3 at home.tysker said:This was the argument against playing the B-team in Azteca. Losing 2-0 away in Mexico would have forced the US to need points against Panama and maybe in CR. And it assumed Canada held serve versus a decent CR playing for their WC lives, which Canada did not do. And more, losing in Mexico would have resulted with less GD which may have been a concern going down to CRfig96 said:Stray thought while going through airport: If the US had lost at Mexico and all other results held, they would have likely needed a result in Costa Rica to finish in top-three.
— Sam Stejskal (@samstejskal) March 28, 2022
That point in the Azteca was huge. Berhalter went for it with his lineup choices, and they paid off.
You touched on it, but I think Canada's sudden resurgence (first ever surgence?) has colored this a bit too. Without the negative results we've seen in those matches recently this team would have just been obviously dominant.
I will say I'm intrigued to see us in World Cup play as opposed to qualifying, it really is two totally different worlds.
I will say I'm intrigued to see us in World Cup play as opposed to qualifying, it really is two totally different worlds.
Is Canada that good?fig96 said:
You touched on it I think Canada's sudden resurgence (first ever surgence?) has colored this a bit too. Without the negative results we've seen in those matches recently this team would have just been obviously dominant.
I will say I'm intrigued to see us in World Cup play as opposed to qualifying, it really is two totally different worlds.
As a team they're lacking some depth, but they've got arguably one of the best fullbacks in the world, are well coached, and qualified comfortably.
How they do vs non CONCACAF competition remains to be seen, I think they're a team built better for that kind of play than to take on the Euro squads.
How they do vs non CONCACAF competition remains to be seen, I think they're a team built better for that kind of play than to take on the Euro squads.
They're legit. They've got some top tier players at key positions and Davies is the best player in the entire region imo. They're not at the top of the table by accident.
They may not make a ton of noise in the WC, but I bet they make it out of group. They also may never field a team as competitive as this one either.
They may not make a ton of noise in the WC, but I bet they make it out of group. They also may never field a team as competitive as this one either.
What do y'all think we need to accomplish in Qatar to consider it a successful WC appearance? Make it out of our group? Make it to the quarterfinals? semis?
Making it out of group would be a huge step for their federation. I think this team could win a knockout game or two if they get favorable draws.
I think he was asking about us, not Qatar.jeffk said:
Making it out of group would be a huge step for their federation. I think this team could win a knockout game or two if they get favorable draws.
I don't want to make any firm lines in the sand without seeing the draw, but I'd like to think that making it out of group is a more than reasonable goal for us considering we're going to be in Pot 2, and I hope we can at least get past one knockout.
Just in case we are taking about Qatar here, I think their benchmark is going to be something along the lines of 1 pt in the group stage for every 3k workers killed. Just not getting a good ROI at all if they get worse than that.
They had a bit of luck in qualifying but they are also built well to counter and have two strikers in good form which helps in Concacaf.
theNetSmith said:
What do y'all think we need to accomplish in Qatar to consider it a successful WC appearance? Make it out of our group? Make it to the quarterfinals? semis?
Right, yeah, I thought you meant Canada earlier sorry.
For the US, I think getting out of group and winning a knockout game would be considered a decent showing Making the quarters would be awesome. 2026 is the tournament I predict we really break through and make the quarters or semis though.
Depends on your mindset. I think we are still at the level of play where making it out of groups is considered a good showing.jeffk said:theNetSmith said:
What do y'all think we need to accomplish in Qatar to consider it a successful WC appearance? Make it out of our group? Make it to the quarterfinals? semis?
Right, yeah, I thought you meant Canada earlier sorry.
For the US, I think getting out of group and winning a knockout game would be considered a decent showing Making the quarters would be awesome. 2026 is the tournament I predict we really break through and make the quarters or semis though.
I also could see where, given our history (ignoring last world cup missed) we were progressing to the poitn where out of groups is expected and need to take that next leap.
Thats a lot of the impetus behind changing how we play and approach the game. Canada this cycle is the spitting image of how we have historically played. It has a limit on what it can do against the elite teams.
If our players werent all so young, I think you would be reasonable to make it to knockouts, and to win at least one of those.
Yeah, sorry if my phrasing was confusing.. I was referring to the USMNT.
I will be pretty disappointed if we don't make it out of our group. Any wins beyond that would be nice, but of course getting a favorable draw and winning our group would make that easier.
I need to set a reminder for myself to watch the selection show.. think it's Friday night.
I will be pretty disappointed if we don't make it out of our group. Any wins beyond that would be nice, but of course getting a favorable draw and winning our group would make that easier.
I need to set a reminder for myself to watch the selection show.. think it's Friday night.
I'll just have to disagree with you. While B team may be a little harsh it definitely wasnt a majority of Best XI type guys. Stu Holden suggested playing a fair amount of of guys not assured of making the 23-man WC roster.PatAg said:The point all along was NOT to play a B team. it was to sit certain players so they would for sure be available for Panama. It was never about just conceding the game to Mexico, in fact, the discussion was that you try to get a point in Mexico and do your best to guarantee 3 at home.tysker said:This was the argument against playing the B-team in Azteca. Losing 2-0 away in Mexico would have forced the US to need points against Panama and maybe in CR. And it assumed Canada held serve versus a decent CR playing for their WC lives, which Canada did not do. And more, losing in Mexico would have resulted with less GD which may have been a concern going down to CRfig96 said:Stray thought while going through airport: If the US had lost at Mexico and all other results held, they would have likely needed a result in Costa Rica to finish in top-three.
— Sam Stejskal (@samstejskal) March 28, 2022
That point in the Azteca was huge. Berhalter went for it with his lineup choices, and they paid off.
Bello is the name I disagree with including, but i also wouldn't have even called him in.tysker said:I'll just have to disagree with you. While B team may be a little harsh it definitely wasnt a majority of Best XI type guys. Stu Holden suggested playing a fair amount of of guys not assured of making the 23-man WC roster.PatAg said:The point all along was NOT to play a B team. it was to sit certain players so they would for sure be available for Panama. It was never about just conceding the game to Mexico, in fact, the discussion was that you try to get a point in Mexico and do your best to guarantee 3 at home.tysker said:This was the argument against playing the B-team in Azteca. Losing 2-0 away in Mexico would have forced the US to need points against Panama and maybe in CR. And it assumed Canada held serve versus a decent CR playing for their WC lives, which Canada did not do. And more, losing in Mexico would have resulted with less GD which may have been a concern going down to CRfig96 said:Stray thought while going through airport: If the US had lost at Mexico and all other results held, they would have likely needed a result in Costa Rica to finish in top-three.
— Sam Stejskal (@samstejskal) March 28, 2022
That point in the Azteca was huge. Berhalter went for it with his lineup choices, and they paid off.
Cannon would have started over Yedlin if he hadn't gotten Covid.
Weah and Adams replaced by Acosta and Arriola, due to yellow card concerns. Long over Robinson I guess, but Long also has among the most starts at CB since Gregg took over, and only really fell out due to injury.
The rest of the lineup is basically who we just played against Panama, in the must win home game.
I also was thinking more in terms of what we discussed on Texags, as opposed to what any talking heads were saying.
As I was going through the list, its apparent we have definitely done a good job of developing quality depth at most positions. Interesting.
Yea, if you are lucky enough to get Group of Death, all expectations change.theNetSmith said:
Yeah, sorry if my phrasing was confusing.. I was referring to the USMNT.
I will be pretty disappointed if we don't make it out of our group. Any wins beyond that would be nice, but of course getting a favorable draw and winning our group would make that easier.
I need to set a reminder for myself to watch the selection show.. think it's Friday night.
Do you think the majority of the 11 players in that pictured lineup aren't going to be on the roster for the WC?
All those fouls on Pulisic that aren't called in CONCACAF will be called in the World Cup. Our team won't get roughed up like they get in our region. And if we do play a physical team we're already seasoned and it won't affect us as much…fig96 said:
I will say I'm intrigued to see us in World Cup play as opposed to qualifying, it really is two totally different worlds.
Looks pretty close to the team we put out against Paname for our biggest game of qualifying, so I hope you are not implying that was a B team?tysker said:I'll just have to disagree with you. While B team may be a little harsh it definitely wasnt a majority of Best XI type guys. Stu Holden suggested playing a fair amount of of guys not assured of making the 23-man WC roster.PatAg said:The point all along was NOT to play a B team. it was to sit certain players so they would for sure be available for Panama. It was never about just conceding the game to Mexico, in fact, the discussion was that you try to get a point in Mexico and do your best to guarantee 3 at home.tysker said:This was the argument against playing the B-team in Azteca. Losing 2-0 away in Mexico would have forced the US to need points against Panama and maybe in CR. And it assumed Canada held serve versus a decent CR playing for their WC lives, which Canada did not do. And more, losing in Mexico would have resulted with less GD which may have been a concern going down to CRfig96 said:Stray thought while going through airport: If the US had lost at Mexico and all other results held, they would have likely needed a result in Costa Rica to finish in top-three.
— Sam Stejskal (@samstejskal) March 28, 2022
That point in the Azteca was huge. Berhalter went for it with his lineup choices, and they paid off.
I believe the point all along was to field as good of a team as you could against Mexico, while also ensuring ourselves we would get a win against Panama.
We HAD to have 3 points against Panama. Without that three points you might be talking about finishing 5th and not even making the playoff.
The point against Mexico saved us from that play in game, which is huge, but the three points against Panama wee still more important as that assured us of 4th or better.
We HAD to have 3 points against Panama. Without that three points you might be talking about finishing 5th and not even making the playoff.
The point against Mexico saved us from that play in game, which is huge, but the three points against Panama wee still more important as that assured us of 4th or better.
I think the style of play we are trying to transition to is better suited to International play, and the World Cup in general.aggiephoenix02 said:All those fouls on Pulisic that aren't called in CONCACAF will be called in the World Cup. Our team won't get roughed up like they get in our region. And if we do play a physical team we're already seasoned and it won't affect us as much…fig96 said:
I will say I'm intrigued to see us in World Cup play as opposed to qualifying, it really is two totally different worlds.
I think against Panama we did a good job of just ramping up the intensity...and really if we can just have some of our players continue to develop and become more clinical finishers, that would be great
aggiephoenix02 said:All those fouls on Pulisic that aren't called in CONCACAF will be called in the World Cup. Our team won't get roughed up like they get in our region. And if we do play a physical team we're already seasoned and it won't affect us as much…fig96 said:
I will say I'm intrigued to see us in World Cup play as opposed to qualifying, it really is two totally different worlds.
CONCACAF games changed in the 3rd third window and even more so this window. The games (mostly) are not being called the same way anymore. Refs really are calling fouls and issuing cards.
Back before the 3rd window the current head of refereeing for CONCACAF left his position. It wasn't entirely his choice but the official stance was "moved on for other opportunities". The interim head of referees is Nicola Rizzoli. He's Italian, a long time UEFA referee who's cone the euro final and WC final.
For whatever reason things changed once he took over and the CONCACAF referees have started calling more fouls and more importantly issuing more cards.
Last night you didn't see hack a Pulisic. He got fouled once with no call and that was the advantage that led to a goal. In fact there weren't a bunch of CONCACAF style unpunished fouls last night at all.
It's been a noticeable change and it's all the refs in all the games. Some refs are still not great refs (parchment from Jamaica being the most notable) but the others have been freed up to call a better game.
Definitely feels like making those calls early, and actually issuing the yellows, is always going to favor us in CONCACAF.Mathguy64 said:aggiephoenix02 said:All those fouls on Pulisic that aren't called in CONCACAF will be called in the World Cup. Our team won't get roughed up like they get in our region. And if we do play a physical team we're already seasoned and it won't affect us as much…fig96 said:
I will say I'm intrigued to see us in World Cup play as opposed to qualifying, it really is two totally different worlds.
CONCACAF games changed in the 3rd third window and even more so this window. The games (mostly) are not being called the same way anymore. Refs really are calling fouls and issuing cards.
Back before the 3rd window the current head of refereeing for CONCACAF left his position. It wasn't entirely his choice but the official stance was "moved on for other opportunities". The interim head of referees is Nicola Rizzoli. He's Italian, a long time UEFA referee who's cone the euro final and WC final.
For whatever reason things changed once he took over and the CONCACAF referees have started calling more fouls and more importantly issuing more cards.
Last night you didn't see hack a Pulisic. He got fouled once with no call and that was the advantage that led to a goal. In fact there weren't a bunch of CONCACAF style unpunished fouls last night at all.
It's been a noticeable change and it's all the refs in all the games. Some refs are still not great refs (parchment from Jamaica being the most notable) but the others have been freed up to call a better game.
I think it makes for a better viewing experience as well, which is also a good business decision by concacaf.
jeffk said:
Do you think the majority of the 11 players in that pictured lineup aren't going to be on the roster for the WC?
4-5 are locks and the others will be TBD. It wouldn't surprise any of us if 3-4 of those guys dont make the final 23. Some of those are just going to be squeezed out
Would you play that team versus Mexico in Azteca in WCQ? It seems closer to the second team than the full strength first team. Its not an insult just goes to show how much depth we really have
I'd bet 8 of them listed there make the final roster. There's always a bit of a shake-up in the final months leading up to the WC with a key injury and a surprise inclusion of a guy who's getting hot at the right time, so it's hard to predict what our needs are going to be.
There may have been a few folks somewhere else advocating playing all depth guys vs Mexico, but most of us here were looking for a few key guys to get rotated in order to preserve our best (or at least the most match-up appropriate) XI for Panama. Super happy it all worked out.
There may have been a few folks somewhere else advocating playing all depth guys vs Mexico, but most of us here were looking for a few key guys to get rotated in order to preserve our best (or at least the most match-up appropriate) XI for Panama. Super happy it all worked out.
I'm so glad to hear this. I do think the third foul on Pulsic was persistence.
Why no card for someone kicking the ball at Del La Torre and Pulisic tho?
Why no card for someone kicking the ball at Del La Torre and Pulisic tho?
Featured Stories
See All
28:37
1d ago
9.2k
Players to Watch: No. 24 Texas A&M vs. Arkansas
by Olin Buchanan
10:31
18h ago
3.0k
DannyDuberstein
Kyler to Spav.. **** you I don't want play for you.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
23
aggiegolfer2012
Kyler to Spav.. **** you I don't want play for you.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
21
VP at Pierce and Pierce
Kyler to Spav.. **** you I don't want play for you.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
12