USA National Team Watch

[LeoH037]

The new crop of USA player is overall more talented than the last... however, they just don't have that grit and "no quit no matter what" mentality that old USA teams had, and there's an air of arrogance, or entitlement about these new kids. It's a different generation, but they just don't seem to have the fight that previous versions of the USMNT used to have.

[Obinna]

The other thing is they are all young. That USA squad that beat England had a much better mix of younger and older players. When all these young American players are in their prime they can be crazy good, but lacking the veteran presence may be a challenge in the short term. Still, it won’t be long until the older youngsters become the leaders, like Pulisic, Mckennie and Adams.

[RS]

7 hours ago, LeoH037 said:

The new crop of USA player is overall more talented than the last... however, they just don't have that grit and "no quit no matter what" mentality that old USA teams had, and there's an air of arrogance, or entitlement about these new kids. It's a different generation, but they just don't seem to have the fight that previous versions of the USMNT used to have.

I'm not sure how anyone can know that yet. Other than Pulisic, how many of the young players have even gone through World Cup qualifying?

I think about a guy like McKennie, who comes across as a bit of an asshole. There's definitely an element of grit and fight to him. Adams is another one who doesn't put up with much bs (although he's not outwardly a shit disturber like McKennie). 

7 hours ago, Obinna said:

The other thing is they are all young. That USA squad that beat England had a much better mix of younger and older players. When all these young American players are in their prime they can be crazy good, but lacking the veteran presence may be a challenge in the short term. Still, it won’t be long until the older youngsters become the leaders, like Pulisic, Mckennie and Adams.

There are some older players that will still be around for qualifying for 2022 and 26. Guys like Brooks, Zardes, Morris, etc., may not be the stereotypical leader types, but they're all in their prime and have been around the block with the USMNT.

[Obinna]

29 minutes ago, RS said:

I'm not sure how anyone can know that yet. Other than Pulisic, how many of the young players have even gone through World Cup qualifying?

I think about a guy like McKennie, who comes across as a bit of an asshole. There's definitely an element of grit and fight to him. Adams is another one who doesn't put up with much bs (although he's not outwardly a shit disturber like McKennie). 

I don't think it is a matter of being sure or not, I think it is a matter of not knowing it yet. Until we see it from them we just don't know, but I agree that some players show those elements. 

29 minutes ago, RS said:

There are some older players that will still be around for qualifying for 2022 and 26. Guys like Brooks, Zardes, Morris, etc., may not be the stereotypical leader types, but they're all in their prime and have been around the block with the USMNT.

For sure. I was going to give some of them mention, but in my opinion there aren't enough of them in the core group. The overall feel of their team right now is young. The USA squad from 2010 had a more balanced age profile. This is not insignificant in my opinion.

When everyone is healthy I think Brooks is a starter, Morris is a maybe-starter, and I am even tempted to bring Altidore into this conversation as a maybe-starter. Zardes is more substitute than starter in my opinion. Same with Miazga, Long and Ream, but one of those 3 will join Brooks on any given day.

So yeah, on any given day the best team is probably 75% young players and 25% prime/veteran players. That is very youth-heavy right now, but it'll even out in time. I expect them to slowly forge their identity as their young core matures, and once they grow into themselves they have the potential to be scary good. At the same time, I also don't expect them to set the world on fire at this stage. I think it's too soon. 

Edited November 16, 2020 by Obinna

[RS]

26 minutes ago, Obinna said:

I don't think it is a matter of being sure or not, I think it is a matter of not knowing it yet. Until we see it from them we just don't know, but I agree that some players show those elements. 

@LeoH037seemed pretty definitive in his assessment, which is why I responded in the way I did.

28 minutes ago, Obinna said:

The overall feel of their team right now is young. The USA squad from 2010 had a more balanced age profile. This is not insignificant in my opinion.

That may be true (we don't know yet), but I don't really think it's a problem for them in 2022 qualifying. The team as a whole seems more built to reach its potential (whatever that is) in 2026, but in the short term they're more than capable of erasing the 2018 failure by at least qualifying for 2022.

[Obinna]

4 minutes ago, RS said:

@LeoH037seemed pretty definitive in his assessment, which is why I responded in the way I did.

Oh yeah, I get that. It's all good. I didn't take him as saying "they will never be gritty", just that they are just not gritty right now, which I would say is both definitive and accurate. 

5 minutes ago, RS said:

@LeoH037seemed pretty definitive in his assessment, which is why I responded in the way I did.

That may be true (we don't know yet), but I don't really think it's a problem for them in 2022 qualifying. The team as a whole seems more built to reach its potential (whatever that is) in 2026, but in the short term they're more than capable of erasing the 2018 failure by at least qualifying for 2022.

I think they qualify for 2022 with little problem, so it that respect they will erase the 2018 failure. How far they go in the actual world cup? We'll have to see. They could forge an identity by making a run. That could define their team identity moving into the 2026 cycle. They certainly have the talent to do so, and who knows, perhaps they find that grittiness along the way.

They could also run into a less-talented, more experienced team that knocks them out or even prevents them from advancing from the group stage. A team like Sweden or Denmark comes to mind. Even a team like Iceland now has more experience in big tournaments than this crop of USA players. This cycle will be big for the trajectory of this generation. 

[Obinna]

Wow. So USA crushes Panama 6-2 to close out their November window. They'll be feeling good about that. Reyna opens his national team account. Soto scores a brace off the bench. Even Sebastian Lleget, who wasn't even suppose to be there, got a goal to his name in this one. 

So positive all around for our friends down south. The only negative would be conceding two goals to a Panama striker who plays in the Prince Mohammad bin Salman League. That'll be disappointing for them.

If the rumors about Canada playing Panama are true, this kind of result raises the expectations for us, wouldn't you say? I definitely don't expect us to beat them by 4 goals, at home, with very likely a non-European squad, but I do expect a win at the very least.

Panama are clearly not the same team who qualified for the last world cup.

Edited November 16, 2020 by Obinna

[Kent]

I am curious what the lack of grit is based on for the new crop. I assume it is last WCQ cycle but I thought it was mentioned that only Pulisic was involved.

For what it’s worth, the gritty 2010 Americans were 1 year removed from losing 5-0 against Mexico in the Gold Cup final, while the ungritty current group is 1 year removed from losing 1-0 against Mexico in the Gold Cup final. But it looks like that 2009 loss was with a B team.

[LeoH037]

11 hours ago, RS said:

@LeoH037seemed pretty definitive in his assessment, which is why I responded in the way I did.

My bad, should have added a "seems" in there

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

I am curious what the lack of grit is based on for the new crop. I assume it is last WCQ cycle but I thought it was mentioned that only Pulisic was involved.

For what it’s worth, the gritty 2010 Americans were 1 year removed from losing 5-0 against Mexico in the Gold Cup final, while the ungritty current group is 1 year removed from losing 1-0 against Mexico in the Gold Cup final. But it looks like that 2009 loss was with a B team.

I think of grit in 2 ways: 1. A style of play and/or a mindset and 2. The ability to grind out results. Kinda the same thing, I guess.

How many times has this USA team grinded out a victory? When they beat teams they tend to play them off the park, but there are very few games so far where they just find a way to win by a goal. Perhaps the Curacao game at the gold cup falls in this category, but really considering the strength of the USA I tend to see that as more of an unconvincing win, rather then a scrapping battle to get the job done.

Rightly or wrongly, I think you need to be the underdog to come away with a "scrappy" or "gritty" victory, and to be fair they haven't had such a test, except against Mexico, where they failed.

I think the gritty USA team, which I really loved, was really exemplified by their run to the confederations cup final. Against all odds they beat Spain in the semifinals and then almost upset Brazil in the final. 

The other example, of course, is the 2002 world cup run, where they knocked out Mexico and then fought valiantly against Germany.

So we'll see about this current generation, but right now they rightly or wrongly have a reputation of being more highly skilled and less capable of finding ways to win against opponents more skilled than they are.

Perhaps they'll change my mind by beating Mexico a few times and maybe going deep into the World Cup. Let's see what happens!

Edited November 17, 2020 by Obinna

[BearcatSA]

I am more concerned about our own team's "grit."

[One American]

13 hours ago, Obinna said:

If the rumors about Canada playing Panama are true, this kind of result raises the expectations for us, wouldn't you say? I definitely don't expect us to beat them by 4 goals, at home, with very likely a non-European squad, but I do expect a win at the very least.

Panama's first dozen players are respectable. Then there's a cliff. If Canada plays their benchwarmers, it should crush them. 

[Corazon]

Panama had at least 6 of their best players ever retire after the 2018 World Cup, sparking a bit of a rebuild after their Golden Generation.

[Obinna]

3 hours ago, One American said:

Panama's first dozen players are respectable. Then there's a cliff. If Canada plays their benchwarmers, it should crush them. 

Last camp poutine, with a team of benchwarmers, in a neutral venue, we beat Barbados twice by a score of 4-1.

As far as Panama has fallen, I think they'll prove more difficult than Barbados, especially at home. 

I'd be happy with a 2-1 or a 1-0 against Panama, considering the circumstances.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Obinna

[Shway]

20 minutes ago, Corazon said:

Panama had at least 6 of their best players ever retire after the 2018 World Cup, sparking a bit of a rebuild after their Golden Generation.

And they were able to blood in some new players.

Thats the main thing for me in watching all these other Concacaf teams.

The coaches have been able strengthen their player pools, by see new guys in games.

We are completely fucked if we can’t have all our best players available. Because we’ll be working with a lot of unfamiliarity.

[Shway]

9 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Last camp poutine, with a team of benchwarmers, in a neutral venue, we beat Barbados twice by a score of 4-1.

As far as Panama has fallen, I think they'll prove more difficult than Barbados, especially at home. 

I'd be happy with a 2-1 or a 1-0 against Panama, considering the circumstances.

I can’t predict a w or a loss, much less a score line  until I see who’s on the team. Especially since we went to Cuba and won 1-0 with an A team. 

Barbados is not really a benchmark comparison, as I think a team of only CPL players could get a result. 

[Obinna]

6 minutes ago, Shway said:

I can’t predict a w or a loss, much less a score line  until I see who’s on the team. Especially since we went to Cuba and won 1-0 with an A team. 

Barbados is not really a benchmark comparison, as I think a team of only CPL players could get a result. 

I am assuming we bring a domestic squad for Camp poutine, like we always do. Do you not think that is a safe assumption?

I would obviously change my outlook if we brought an A team. 

The only reason I brought up Barbados was to contrast them with Panama, who are obviously much better. My point was to show that with a camp poutine squad we can blow out the likes of Barbados, but we cannot do that against Panama. They are not Barbados. I was not using Barbados as a benchmark comparison, it was actually the opposite.

 

[CanadaFan123]

Considering that we have beat Panama once in the last 15 years and will not have played a match in a year come match time we should be happy with any result against them.

[Floortom]

33 minutes ago, CanadaFan123 said:

Considering that we have beat Panama once in the last 15 years and will not have played a match in a year come match time we should be happy with any result against them.

I would agree - although technically we did beat them a few WCQ cycles ago off a surprise quick free kick that led to a Derosario goal

[gator]

1 hour ago, Shway said:

I can’t predict a w or a loss, much less a score line  until I see who’s on the team. Especially since we went to Cuba and won 1-0 with an A team. 

Barbados is not really a benchmark comparison, as I think a team of only CPL players could get a result. 

That was an excellent result actually given the heat and humidity, state of the pitch and having a keeper sent off, I was at that match and am astounded our guys played as well as they did! I am a guy who loves the heat and humidity, that match was played in the centre of Havana, no breeze and extreme mid day heat, these were extreme conditions, it was hot in the stands in the shade drinking cold Cristal, imagine running on the cow pasture field for 90 minutes!

[Obinna]

14 minutes ago, gator said:

That was an excellent result actually given the heat and humidity, state of the pitch and having a keeper sent off, I was at that match and am astounded our guys played as well as they did! I am a guy who loves the heat and humidity, that match was played in the centre of Havana, no breeze and extreme mid day heat, these were extreme conditions, it was hot in the stands in the shade drinking cold Cristal, imagine running on the cow pasture field for 90 minutes!

I think he was talking about the nations league, which was played at a neutral venue. Am I right to assume you are talking about the 1-0 from the previous cycle? I think Edgar got the goal in that one, didn't he? Cool to hear about your experience at that game either way!

Edit: It was Occean and the time we played Cuba in Havana was 2012. Wow doesn't seem that long ago.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Obinna

[red card]

The 6-2 scoreline is misleading. Kasey Keller on ESPN FC said if the keepers were switched, it would have been 2-0 Panama with 7 minutes to go. And of the 3 US goals in the last 7, at least one involved keeper error - maybe two. It was the Panama keeper's first cap. 

xG was also 2.64 for the US and 1.18 for Panama. So 3-1 is more closer to the truer result. 

 

[gator]

38 minutes ago, Obinna said:

I think he was talking about the nations league, which was played at a neutral venue. Am I right to assume you are talking about the 1-0 from the previous cycle? I think Edgar got the goal in that one, didn't he? Cool to hear about your experience at that game either way!

Edit: It was Occean and the time we played Cuba in Havana was 2012. Wow doesn't seem that long ago.

When I saw playing in Cuba I assumed that was the match he was referring to as that was the most recent match in Cuba AFAIK, it was 2012, time flies!

[One American]

The good news for Canada is that Soto and Gioacchani each had a brace and apparently Berhalter mentioned Daryl Dike by name in an interview. Make of that what you will re: Akinola. 

[CanadaFan123]

2 hours ago, Floortom said:

I would agree - although technically we did beat them a few WCQ cycles ago off a surprise quick free kick that led to a Derosario goal

As I said, we have beat them once in the past 15 years. That’s the win I’m referencing.