Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the game. The US looked strong. Would have been nice to see us bury our chances, but I was happy with how we played.

The first half was strong. It was definitely better than the last WC cycle play, with Klinsmann and then after with Arena. I'd call that progress.

The game is played for 90 minutes. I just looked at the stats of our WC qualifier against Mexico under Klinsmann and possession and passing accuracy numbers are almost identical. The difference is that we have allowed twice as many shots under Berhalter and we lost against Mexico's B team last week. We lost both games by a single goal, which in the WC qualifier came from a set piece in 89th minute. So, I would not this performance a progress.

I was not comparing this game with that game verbatim. I was comparing the overall performance over the set of games. It was shameful in that era, much worse than this Gold Cup.

I don't know about it. We almost lost to Curacao in this Gold Cup and we got outplayed by them too.

We LOST big to T&T last time, among other debacles. There’s no comparison

But can they do it on a humid Tuesday night in Couva

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the game. The US looked strong. Would have been nice to see us bury our chances, but I was happy with how we played.

The first half was strong. It was definitely better than the last WC cycle play, with Klinsmann and then after with Arena. I'd call that progress.

The game is played for 90 minutes. I just looked at the stats of our WC qualifier against Mexico under Klinsmann and possession and passing accuracy numbers are almost identical. The difference is that we have allowed twice as many shots under Berhalter and we lost against Mexico's B team last week. We lost both games by a single goal, which in the WC qualifier came from a set piece in 89th minute. So, I would not this performance a progress.

I was not comparing this game with that game verbatim. I was comparing the overall performance over the set of games. It was shameful in that era, much worse than this Gold Cup.

I don't know about it. We almost lost to Curacao in this Gold Cup and we got outplayed by them too.

We LOST big to T&T last time, among other debacles. There’s no comparison

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the game. The US looked strong. Would have been nice to see us bury our chances, but I was happy with how we played.

The first half was strong. It was definitely better than the last WC cycle play, with Klinsmann and then after with Arena. I'd call that progress.

The game is played for 90 minutes. I just looked at the stats of our WC qualifier against Mexico under Klinsmann and possession and passing accuracy numbers are almost identical. The difference is that we have allowed twice as many shots under Berhalter and we lost against Mexico's B team last week. We lost both games by a single goal, which in the WC qualifier came from a set piece in 89th minute. So, I would not this performance a progress.

I was not comparing this game with that game verbatim. I was comparing the overall performance over the set of games. It was shameful in that era, much worse than this Gold Cup.

I don't know about it. We almost lost to Curacao in this Gold Cup and we got outplayed by them too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the game. The US looked strong. Would have been nice to see us bury our chances, but I was happy with how we played.

The first half was strong. It was definitely better than the last WC cycle play, with Klinsmann and then after with Arena. I'd call that progress.

The game is played for 90 minutes. I just looked at the stats of our WC qualifier against Mexico under Klinsmann and possession and passing accuracy numbers are almost identical. The difference is that we have allowed twice as many shots under Berhalter and we lost against Mexico's B team last week. We lost both games by a single goal, which in the WC qualifier came from a set piece in 89th minute. So, I would not this performance a progress.

I was not comparing this game with that game verbatim. I was comparing the overall performance over the set of games. It was shameful in that era, much worse than this Gold Cup.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the game. The US looked strong. Would have been nice to see us bury our chances, but I was happy with how we played.

The first half was strong. It was definitely better than the last WC cycle play, with Klinsmann and then after with Arena. I'd call that progress.

The game is played for 90 minutes. I just looked at the stats of our WC qualifier against Mexico under Klinsmann and possession and passing accuracy numbers are almost identical. The difference is that we have allowed twice as many shots under Berhalter and we lost against Mexico's B team last week. We lost both games by a single goal, which in the WC qualifier came from a set piece in 89th minute. So, I would not this performance a progress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the game. The US looked strong. Would have been nice to see us bury our chances, but I was happy with how we played.

The first half was strong. It was definitely better than the last WC cycle play, with Klinsmann and then after with Arena. I'd call that progress.

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the game. The US looked strong. Would have been nice to see us bury our chances, but I was happy with how we played.

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the game. The US looked strong. Would have been nice to see us bury our chances, but I was happy with how we played.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weah and Sargent have to play regularly for their club teams before we name them as our saviors.

As for the tournament itself, it doesn't answer many questions.

Whether you love or hate Berhalter, you came out with something positive.

First half of the game last night was a positive step forward, but they're obviously not in the same class as even the Mexican "B" team, which is what we played.

Mexico's A team used not to be able to win games played in the US. Now, their B team comes and wins. In light of this, why should we view the first half of the game against the Mexican B team as a positive step forward? Especially since Berhalter went all-out to win the Gold Cup by picking a 23 person roster of his current best players -- instead of picking a younger or less experienced squad (like Mexico did for this meaningless tournament) so that he can start identifying and developing the players that may be his best 23 by the next WC? This was a very short-sighted tournament for Berhalter and the USMNT, and their performance in the tournament was overall disheartening. I feel like the USMNT has regressed since the disaster against T&T a couple years ago.

Because the first half against Mexico was easily the best they've played since Berhalter started. Seeing the team start to gel a bit under his system is a good thing, even if they didn't win.
And saying they've regressed is just silly. New coach, new players, new system...give them a chance at least.

It has been two years since we failed to qualify for the world cup and we still need time to gel? Tata Martino started to coach Mexico around the same time as Beerholder started to coach the USMNT and Mexico's team operates like a well oiled machine even though they brought mostly young players and quite a few of their stars skipped the tournament. It's a failing grade for the USSF and the coach.

Not sure which tournament you watched. Mexico needed PKs to beat Costa Rica and nearly lost to Haiti. They didn't look like a well-oiled machine except for about the first 30 minutes of the second half of the U.S. game. Both teams missed key players and were dealing with new approaches. Also consider Berhalter has never coached a national team. Tata has a lot of experience with it.

PS: Not a Berhalter supporter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weah and Sargent have to play regularly for their club teams before we name them as our saviors.

As for the tournament itself, it doesn't answer many questions.

Whether you love or hate Berhalter, you came out with something positive.

First half of the game last night was a positive step forward, but they're obviously not in the same class as even the Mexican "B" team, which is what we played.

Mexico's A team used not to be able to win games played in the US. Now, their B team comes and wins. In light of this, why should we view the first half of the game against the Mexican B team as a positive step forward? Especially since Berhalter went all-out to win the Gold Cup by picking a 23 person roster of his current best players -- instead of picking a younger or less experienced squad (like Mexico did for this meaningless tournament) so that he can start identifying and developing the players that may be his best 23 by the next WC? This was a very short-sighted tournament for Berhalter and the USMNT, and their performance in the tournament was overall disheartening. I feel like the USMNT has regressed since the disaster against T&T a couple years ago.

Because the first half against Mexico was easily the best they've played since Berhalter started. Seeing the team start to gel a bit under his system is a good thing, even if they didn't win.
And saying they've regressed is just silly. New coach, new players, new system...give them a chance at least.

It has been two years since we failed to qualify for the world cup and we still need time to gel? Tata Martino started to coach Mexico around the same time as Beerholder started to coach the USMNT and Mexico's team operates like a well oiled machine even though they brought mostly young players and quite a few of their stars skipped the tournament. It's a failing grade for the USSF and the coach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weah and Sargent have to play regularly for their club teams before we name them as our saviors.

As for the tournament itself, it doesn't answer many questions.

Whether you love or hate Berhalter, you came out with something positive.

First half of the game last night was a positive step forward, but they're obviously not in the same class as even the Mexican "B" team, which is what we played.

Mexico's A team used not to be able to win games played in the US. Now, their B team comes and wins. In light of this, why should we view the first half of the game against the Mexican B team as a positive step forward? Especially since Berhalter went all-out to win the Gold Cup by picking a 23 person roster of his current best players -- instead of picking a younger or less experienced squad (like Mexico did for this meaningless tournament) so that he can start identifying and developing the players that may be his best 23 by the next WC? This was a very short-sighted tournament for Berhalter and the USMNT, and their performance in the tournament was overall disheartening. I feel like the USMNT has regressed since the disaster against T&T a couple years ago.

Because the first half against Mexico was easily the best they've played since Berhalter started. Seeing the team start to gel a bit under his system is a good thing, even if they didn't win.
And saying they've regressed is just silly. New coach, new players, new system...give them a chance at least.