With regards to #2 and #3, it is not very clear the timing or the exact message that was shared with Gio.

Apparently, Gio knew at least 2 days prior to Wales match he wasn't going to start/feature, based on ESPNFC Podcast.

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Mistakes are made. You forgive them. You move along. You remember them but don't hold a grudge. If it happens again, it's not a mistake any more.

---

Will the same standard be used for Ggg?

---

Good question.

Gio is a big ol' *****.

Lol at y'all saying things like, "Gio/Claudio also had some role to play in it too", and, "He apologized, water under the bridge".

He was selfish to the point of almost being sent home from a World Cup! He was unnecessary drama during an already stressful situation, and y'all are acting like Gregg is in the wrong? That's ridiculous.

Gregg should have kept quiet about it and let it get out through the players, and for this I say he shouldn't get another cycle, but don't act like this isn't 100% on Gio and his father (for raising a POS son)…

Chuck Cunningham said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Mistakes are made. You forgive them. You move along. You remember them but don't hold a grudge. If it happens again, it's not a mistake any more.

---

Will the same standard be used for Ggg?

---

Good question.

---

Sure. My biggest frustration with Ggg have nothing to do with this situation and all to do with his tactics and in game substitutions. Other things considered I don't think he will put us in position to get better and make a run in the '26 WC. For those reasons I think he needs to go.

1. Why would Gregg Berhalter, the manager of an international soccer squad, make comments about situations that concerned leadership functions, on multiple levels, at a symposium that was about *checks notes* leadership?

About the only guy I'd pay to hear talk about something that wasn't his job was Mike Leach (RIP).

Was Berhalter a little careless to hope nobody would scurry off and say what he said? Probably, but he operated under the rules that prohibited that. But to talk about those situations was why he was the speaker.

2. Are you saying that you wouldn't talk to your players before a game or tournament and lay out your expectations and scenarios? I've coached teenagers too, and they don't always handle the unexpected very easily. If Berhalter doesn't say anything to Reyna, does he then sit on the bench, silently stewing over his perceived dismissal? Or, as repeated here often, do you acknowledge that Reyna is behind Pulisic, Weah, and Aaronson, and let him know what to expect?

3. If Berhalter isn't going to play Reyna, why bring him? Because he is talented, because he is a potential linchpin for future squads, because there are 23 potential spots on the team, because a Tab Ramos can get elbowed in the temple or a Jozy Altidore can strain a hamstring.

To your point of incentivizing players, and having them want to be there, isn't it telling how Reyna reacted to the news? Somewhere in the area of petulant and disruptive. Given the opportunity to prove he wants to be there, to force his way onto the pitch, he had to be counseled and corrected.

4. As noted, it wasn't meant to be a public discussion. But honestly, as a professional athlete, I don't understand why you would need to "trust" your manager much beyond having the common goal of victory? It's the same confusion I feel about a NFL player needing extra motivation when going into a game (particularly a playoff atmosphere, like the World Cup is). When I coached, I made decisions based on the purpose of winning, unless it conflicted with player safety. I didn't much care what the parents wanted, or what the players thought. And you can certainly be sure that when it came time to put players in, the ones that got the first look were the ones that hustled in practice and were involved in the game even while they were on the bench.

But if nothing else, Berhalter was all but done as manager anyway. There's little personal incentive to protect players' feelings about things that are factually true.

LeonardSkinner said:

---

1. Why would Gregg Berhalter, the manager of an international soccer squad, make comments about situations that concerned leadership functions, on multiple levels, at a symposium that was about *checks notes* leadership?

About the only guy I'd pay to hear talk about something that wasn't his job was Mike Leach (RIP).

Was Berhalter a little careless to hope nobody would scurry off and say what he said? Probably, but he operated under the rules that prohibited that. But to talk about those situations was why he was the speaker.

2. Are you saying that you wouldn't talk to your players before a game or tournament and lay out your expectations and scenarios? I've coached teenagers too, and they don't always handle the unexpected very easily. If Berhalter doesn't say anything to Reyna, does he then sit on the bench, silently stewing over his perceived dismissal? Or, as repeated here often, do you acknowledge that Reyna is behind Pulisic, Weah, and Aaronson, and let him know what to expect?

3. If Berhalter isn't going to play Reyna, why bring him? Because he is talented, because he is a potential linchpin for future squads, because there are 23 potential spots on the team, because a Tab Ramos can get elbowed in the temple or a Jozy Altidore can strain a hamstring.

To your point of incentivizing players, and having them want to be there, isn't it telling how Reyna reacted to the news? Somewhere in the area of petulant and disruptive. Given the opportunity to prove he wants to be there, to force his way onto the pitch, he had to be counseled and corrected.

4. As noted, it wasn't meant to be a public discussion. But honestly, as a professional athlete, I don't understand why you would need to "trust" your manager much beyond having the common goal of victory? It's the same confusion I feel about a NFL player needing extra motivation when going into a game (particularly a playoff atmosphere, like the World Cup is). When I coached, I made decisions based on the purpose of winning, unless it conflicted with player safety. I didn't much care what the parents wanted, or what the players thought. And you can certainly be sure that when it came time to put players in, the ones that got the first look were the ones that hustled in practice and were involved in the game even while they were on the bench.

But if nothing else, Berhalter was all but done as manager anyway. There's little personal incentive to protect players' feelings about things that are factually true.

---

Well, thank God you aren't up for the role as National Team manager.

Nice burn?

Instead of being smarmy, why not refute what he's saying and add to the discussion?

aggiephoenix02 said:

---

Instead of being smarmy, why not refute what he's saying and add to the discussion?

---

I stated my point that he argued against. I find his points are wrong and without merit.

At least you have a sense of humor…

aggiephoenix02 said:

---

At least you have a sense of humor…

---

Look, he apparently thinks Berhalter is blameless for the utter s-storm his comments caused. Seems very logical to me. How can I possibly refute such a position?

Aston94 said:

---

aggiephoenix02 said:

---

At least you have a sense of humor…

---

Look, he apparently thinks Berhalter is blameless for the utter s-storm his comments caused. Seems very logical to me. How can I possibly refute such a position?

---

Reckless? Probably not.
Careless? Closer to the spot.
Blameless? Not by a long shot.

But, I have found that, most ****storms tend to be discovered by people who want to find one (not you).

LeonardSkinner said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

aggiephoenix02 said:

---

At least you have a sense of humor…

---

Look, he apparently thinks Berhalter is blameless for the utter s-storm his comments caused. Seems very logical to me. How can I possibly refute such a position?

---

Reckless? Probably not.
Careless? Closer to the spot.
Blameless? Not by a long shot.

But, I have found that, most ****storms tend to be discovered by people who want to find one (not you).

---

Let's discuss that point a little bit. You don't find his comments reckless? He was talking to a symposium. Not one person, not a reporter he was going to make sure that was taking this off the record, but a freaking symposium.

He didn't know who all he was speaking to, yet he assumed they would all keep this confidential? That is the essence of reckless to me.

If not reckless, it was intentional. I tend to think Berhalter is smart enough to know these comments would get out. If I had to guess I would tend to guess that his intention was to make Reyna look like the petulant player and him the wise, forgiving coach. It didn't play out that way, but I bet that was the intention.

I just don't see how Berhalter releasing the information is good in anyway, so him saying to a group of people is reckless.

As I understand it, it was a symposium that was supposed to be under the "Chatham House rule." New term to me, so when I looked it up it basically says, you can talk about what is said in the meeting, but don't identify who said it.

From the event website:
" (Editor's note, Dec. 11, 8:25pm EST: Berhalter's comments were at a gathering held under the Chatham House Rule and were not meant to be public, but were erroneously greenlit for publication by someone representing the event organizers.) "

https://www.charterworks.com/leadership-tips-from-the-us-mens-soccer-head-coach/

So, who's at fault here? Berhalter was told that this event would be held under that rule. It sounds like he thought it would be completely off the record (wrong), and he spoke freely because of it. I don't think it's reckless for him to talk about the team and the issues that arose. He might have been careless in thinking it was off the record, and in trusting others to maintain the privacy the rule implies.

LeonardSkinner said:

---

As I understand it, it was a symposium that was supposed to be under the "Chatham House rule." New term to me, so when I looked it up it basically says, you can talk about what is said in the meeting, but don't identify who said it.

From the event website:
" (Editor's note, Dec. 11, 8:25pm EST: Berhalter's comments were at a gathering held under the Chatham House Rule and were not meant to be public, but were erroneously greenlit for publication by someone representing the event organizers.) "

https://www.charterworks.com/leadership-tips-from-the-us-mens-soccer-head-coach/

So, who's at fault here? Berhalter was told that this event would be held under that rule. It sounds like he thought it would be completely off the record (wrong), and he spoke freely because of it. I don't think it's reckless for him to talk about the team and the issues that arose. He might have been careless in thinking it was off the record, and in trusting others to maintain the privacy the rule implies.

---

The symposium clearly has some fault for violating their rules, but again, I don't think Berhalter should be saying what he said no matter who he is talking with. He is taking information from the inner sanctum of a locker room and spreading it, whether he said "I will tell you as long as you keep it a secret " or not, he shouldn't be passing along information from inside the team. It's just a really bad look for him,

I don't know who's winning, but I do know who's losing…



…their hair.

OregonAggie said:

---

tysker said:

---

Aston94 said:

---

It's okay to say they both did something wrong. It really is.

---

Besides being naive about the 'off the record' conversation what exactly did Gregg do wrong?

---

I think that's all he did wrong but damn that's a really big mistake. It breaks the trust between the players and the coach, which you simply can't have at any level of competition.

Would it have come out eventually? Yeah. Let it be a player that leaks it out after the fact but it shouldn't be the head coach.

I'm not a GGG fan but I was at peace with him getting another run before this. Our lack of a striker, which really killed out attacking abilities this tournament, isn't on him. That's a player pool problem. I thought overall GGG did well enough to earn another cycle. This is a game changer to me just because of how important team culture and trust is within a team. I think he shattered his credibility

---

While I agree in general, GGG does deserve some fault for player selection and not actively calling up players during friendlies or even qualifying who potentially could have helped at striker along the way.

Guys like Vasquez deserve at least a run out with the season he had (and we need to get him capped ASAP).

I agree on getting Vazquez capped as soon as possible after the season he just had, but I think it would have been hard for Berhalter to have him involved a whole lot before this World Cup.

The guy had been a complete non-factor until this most recent season, and really wasn't entering the radar until the summer friendlies at which point I think you've got to start running out guys you're somewhat sure are going to be on the World Cup roster and get them playing together

Just hit his stride a year late to be involved in the previous cycle

If Haji Wright hadn't gotten his first cap in June I'd agree with you. But it was obvious we were looking for a solution at striker and Vasquez had 6 or 7 goals by then.

It is fair to say he might have come on a bit late, but he was at least more of worth a look somewhere along the line as were a few others.

Not a completely unfair response, but the difference is that Wright had had a pretty good full 2021-2022 season in Turkey while Vazquez had had a hot couple of months

Vazquez really took off in July at which point it was certainly too late to have him involved in the summer friendlies

They could have tried to schedule something in August like Mexico did even if it was outside the intl window with MLS only players.

TRM said:

---

They could have tried to schedule something in August like Mexico did even if it was outside the intl window with MLS only players.

---

Woulda been wholly in favor of finding some extra games, but just imagine the mess of opinions flying around if an MLS only match results in an MLS player ending up on the national team over a European player

I'm not sure the true 2026 striker solution is currently out there in the world, at least at the senior level. Hope I'm wrong

I would have been in favor of finding a better MLS option than Roldan or Long.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

TRM said:

---

They could have tried to schedule something in August like Mexico did even if it was outside the intl window with MLS only players.

---

Woulda been wholly in favor of finding some extra games, but just imagine the mess of opinions flying around if an MLS only match results in an MLS player ending up on the national team over a European player

I'm not sure the true 2026 striker solution is currently out there in the world, at least at the senior level. Hope I'm wrong

---

Rodrigo Neri

TXAggie2011 said:

---

TRM said:

---

I would have been in favor of finding a better MLS option than Roldan or Long.

---

Y'all think Berhalter told Roldan he'd have a limited role?

---

Nah he just told him he's a vibes guy only.

KCup17 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

TRM said:

---

I would have been in favor of finding a better MLS option than Roldan or Long.

---

Y'all think Berhalter told Roldan he'd have a limited role?

---

Nah he just told him he's a vibes guy only.

---

That's not a joke.

TRM said:

---

I would have been in favor of finding a better MLS option than Roldan or Long.

---

Roldan speaks to how shallow the pool is in the midfield. If it wasn't Roldan, it would have been someone like Sebastian Lleget. ...which is why I think some of our wingers like Gio, Aaronson, Pulisic should be training at #10/CAM when they're in camp.

Long's presence on the roster speaks to the injuries to Miles Robinson and Chris Richards. Somehow Mark McKenzie was left off for Long though. I'm not in training in the most recent camps so I don't know what makes Long more trustworthy than McKenzie, but McK was not injured and playing in Belgium.

at the end of the day, guys like Roldan and Long recorded zero minutes in Qatar. We lost in the knockout and IMO a big factor was how gassed MMA was because Greggg did not trust guys like LDLT and Roldan in the midfield at all during the group stage matches. We need depth there.

I know he has been injured in the past but also just put in a phenomenal season is Pomykal. He certainly could've played 20 minutes at a high level. Yeah

Pomykal is another CDM. Acosta was pretty much the only other MF that Greggg trusted outside of MMA to play any minutes in Qatar.

I do think LDLT was due to fitness coming off injury... but we really need more 8 and 10 midfielders to break through in Europe.

Pomykal is a CAM, is he not? Pat?

It's a chicken-egg argument, but I feel pretty confident we'd have seen more roster rotation and subs if we could score goals to pull away from teams. 90' of tied or one goal play makes taking one or more of MMA off real unlikely.

I agree with this except the statement that GGG doesn't trust Roldan. Im pretty certain that he does trust him but only as a locker room guy. I think we all knew that when he made the roster he wasn't going to see any minutes unless we were up by 3.