Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that’s all you saw, you don’t understand the game.

Care to respond to my actual statement without a pompous redefinition? Do you agree that Uruguay is an athletic and running team or not?

Which team doesn't have athletic players?

USMNT

I agree with this completely. If you think Tyler, Weston and Musah are athletic midfielders, you don't know what athletic means. The centerbacks are even worse (though with Ream, that is a function of age). Uruguay has multiple players head and shoulders above anybody on the US team; they are also more athletic. I don't know what "running" team means at all.

Name some of history's top rated Midfielders
Think Spain, Holland, Germany, Brazil, Croatia, Argentina....
How many of them were/are more 'athletic' than the USA Midfielders

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unfortunate thing is, for all of the problems with the current US coach, I actually think he had the best squad out there under the circumstances.

You can quibble at the margins, and there were some injury factors, but that is true for every national team after the long club season.

So no, there are not a bunch of less athletic, better soccer players that would have made a difference. Aaronson has more skills than half of the starting lineup, and better soccer IQ than almost any American, but I think a front 3 of Pulisic, Balogun and Weah, with Reyna, plus two of McKennie, Adams and Musah in the midfield, is the best the US can do right now. Reyna is a better fit with that group than Aaronson.

The creativity and vision is not awful, it's just not on par with the top, top level. But there is no easy solution.

There are some exciting young players, but honestly fewer for the US now than many other high/mid-level national teams.

Most likely, the US will work hard and continue to hover as a top 20-30 soccer nation, regardless of coach / player selection. They can have good luck and make the quarterfinals of major tournaments, maybe even higher.

Or they can have bad luck and fail to get out of the group stage, like this Copa. That happens to almost every country. Complete failures like not making the 2018 World Cup will be very rare, especially with the World Cup expansion.

Reyna and Aaronnsen can't even get minutes on their bottom dwelling club teams. There are better players out there.

True, loads of better players, but not Americans. What American player would you slot in ahead of Aaronson and Reyna in a major tournament today?

I would love if there were multiple options to create chances against a team like Uruguay, but I don't know any American I would pick ahead of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that’s all you saw, you don’t understand the game.

Care to respond to my actual statement without a pompous redefinition? Do you agree that Uruguay is an athletic and running team or not?

Which team doesn't have athletic players?

USMNT

I agree with this completely. If you think Tyler, Weston and Musah are athletic midfielders, you don't know what athletic means. The centerbacks are even worse (though with Ream, that is a function of age). Uruguay has multiple players head and shoulders above anybody on the US team; they are also more athletic. I don't know what "running" team means at all.

Anonymous wrote:
Uruguay . . . I don't know what "running" team means at all.

Really Einstein? "My football, in defense, is very simple: we run all the time." Marcelo Bielsa.

Look, just because you worship Bielsa does nothing to clarify what is obviously a silly statement by both of you. I watched Leeds play in the Bielsa Era. And? It's not exactly how Uruguay played.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uruguay . . . I don't know what "running" team means at all.

Really Einstein? "My football, in defense, is very simple: we run all the time." Marcelo Bielsa.

Anonymous wrote:Uruguay . . . I don't know what "running" team means at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that’s all you saw, you don’t understand the game.

Care to respond to my actual statement without a pompous redefinition? Do you agree that Uruguay is an athletic and running team or not?

Which team doesn't have athletic players?

USMNT

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that’s all you saw, you don’t understand the game.

Care to respond to my actual statement without a pompous redefinition? Do you agree that Uruguay is an athletic and running team or not?

Which team doesn't have athletic players?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If that’s all you saw, you don’t understand the game.

Care to respond to my actual statement without a pompous redefinition? Do you agree that Uruguay is an athletic and running team or not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unfortunate thing is, for all of the problems with the current US coach, I actually think he had the best squad out there under the circumstances.

You can quibble at the margins, and there were some injury factors, but that is true for every national team after the long club season.

So no, there are not a bunch of less athletic, better soccer players that would have made a difference. Aaronson has more skills than half of the starting lineup, and better soccer IQ than almost any American, but I think a front 3 of Pulisic, Balogun and Weah, with Reyna, plus two of McKennie, Adams and Musah in the midfield, is the best the US can do right now. Reyna is a better fit with that group than Aaronson.

The creativity and vision is not awful, it's just not on par with the top, top level. But there is no easy solution.

There are some exciting young players, but honestly fewer for the US now than many other high/mid-level national teams.

Most likely, the US will work hard and continue to hover as a top 20-30 soccer nation, regardless of coach / player selection. They can have good luck and make the quarterfinals of major tournaments, maybe even higher.

Or they can have bad luck and fail to get out of the group stage, like this Copa. That happens to almost every country. Complete failures like not making the 2018 World Cup will be very rare, especially with the World Cup expansion.

Reyna and Aaronnsen can't even get minutes on their bottom dwelling club teams. There are better players out there.

Anonymous wrote:The unfortunate thing is, for all of the problems with the current US coach, I actually think he had the best squad out there under the circumstances.

You can quibble at the margins, and there were some injury factors, but that is true for every national team after the long club season.

So no, there are not a bunch of less athletic, better soccer players that would have made a difference. Aaronson has more skills than half of the starting lineup, and better soccer IQ than almost any American, but I think a front 3 of Pulisic, Balogun and Weah, with Reyna, plus two of McKennie, Adams and Musah in the midfield, is the best the US can do right now. Reyna is a better fit with that group than Aaronson.

The creativity and vision is not awful, it's just not on par with the top, top level. But there is no easy solution.

There are some exciting young players, but honestly fewer for the US now than many other high/mid-level national teams.

Most likely, the US will work hard and continue to hover as a top 20-30 soccer nation, regardless of coach / player selection. They can have good luck and make the quarterfinals of major tournaments, maybe even higher.

Or they can have bad luck and fail to get out of the group stage, like this Copa. That happens to almost every country. Complete failures like not making the 2018 World Cup will be very rare, especially with the World Cup expansion.