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…
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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'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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?