- Joined: Oct 13, 2016
- Last Login: Jan 5, 2022, 11:45am EST
- Comments: 6,768
Share this profile
Comment 1 reply
Did I say "the team played well"?
No, I said:
is that the "90’s coach’s tactics" led to an immediate and significant improvement from the team both in terms of results, possession, shot attempts, and chance creation.
Maybe you should read what you respond to
Comment 6 recs
Arriola and sargent aren't playing for the same positions
Sargent’s "workrate" outstrips any of our other strikers, his distrubution outstrips any of our other strikers, his pressing outstrips any of our other strikers, and his hold up and link up play outstrips any of our other strikers. If we had pulisic, weah, or aaronson level options up top you might have a point. Also, unlike sargent who offers the most in various departments for that position, arriola’s *best attribute is just something weah and arriola do better.
Comment 1 reply, 6 recs
Sargent is a pretty obvious pick for me considering no other striker in the pool offers his skillset
while the lack of goals(at a level where jozy level players can go scoreless) may justify not starting him, there’s really no reason not to have his pressing, distribution, and link up as an option of the bench
Comment 2 replies
Arriola was also a squad player for THE top team in the championship
not that i’d pick him on a roster, but if that’s what we’re going off with holmes, than club america and swansea are/were bigger and better
Comment 1 rec
Comment 2 replies
The only problem with this theory
is that the "90’s coach’s tactics" led to an immediate and significant improvement from the team both in terms of results, possession, shot attempts, and chance creation. And in case you forgot we literally beat a team that we couldn’t beat twice by 4 after beating a team that outpossesed and outshot us the last time we faced them by a margin of 6.
The big disaster wasn’t a game where bruce implemented "90’s tactics", it was in a game where he got overconfident and played progressively in a game we only needed a draw from.
The "(or wasn’t)" is just laughable since jk’s handpicked captain led a locker room mutiny against him in his 2nd to last game in charge.
Your alternate history recap only works if we disregard what was happening throughout the duration of the cycle, or if we just ignore what was being tactically implemented game to game. But here’s a hint: the best results under both jurgen and bruce occurred when the us played "90’s football". The worst results were when we tried to replicate the type of football you find aesthetically pleasing.
Comment 1 reply, 1 rec
Comment 1 reply
Comment 1 reply
You thinking there's something to be understood off "25" minuites in a frinedly vs jamaica's b team explains a lot.
duane holmes is a potentially servicable depth piece who does what luca does worse. There’s not much to be understood here.
Comment 1 rec
It depends on how well he does
though arriola being rated over gio 2 doesn’t seem ridiculous. And I can always see an argument about ahtleticism translating better internationally in a comparison to konrad even if i don’t agree with it. (Though i don’t know why we need arriola’s "atheleticism" if we have weah)
Quality is relative though
if he plays a more scarce position than that has the byproduct of making him more impactful on a wider varieity of teams. Which is again, why it’s always silly to me to divorce "value" from "best". Also fwiw, adams has played the most minuites for us in wcq and has the highest per 90 and accumulative plus-minus score and is average score on match raters in wcq is higher than any us player with a comparable amount of minuites. Adams also has had a comparable club peak and generates comparable interest from the big clubs to anyone not named chris richards or sergino dest.
This isn’t to say he’s our best player, but he has various avenues one could argue for him. At the moment i’m defaulting towards mckennie, but mckennie’s also been somewhat sheltered by
a. not really paritcipating in "tough" concacaf fixtures
b. playing in the weakest league of the big 4
c. not really facing talented competition for his position
and it’s somewhat concerning that he’s only really been linked to mid-table teams which may say something about how sustainable european scouts think his current stretch of form is, or how well they think it transaltes across context.
sample size sample size sample size
…yea? but that comes with the territory.
We’re comparing one-off performances. Uncertainity will always be a given no matter what you use. Like, yeah, okay, you can go with a conclusion that’s "theoretically" plausible based on feelings and vibes if you want, but I’m not seeing why it’s better that gets "purchase" as opposed to combining "winning"/impact, relatively throughout granular grades, boxscore data, and team context.
It’s true that this kind of thing is subject to variance, but if that’s really a deal-breaker for you….then don’t compare one-off performances.
but I just don’t think most influential player in most surprising victory automatically equals best.
Automatically? No. But things don’t have to be automatic to be likely. It would be a different story if it was just the granular stuff. But when the granular stuff and the holistic stuff line up so neatly and you have such a clear causal relationship, that’s about as close to "automatic" as you get for this kind for thing. "Sample size, sample size, sample size" makes it less clear, but the fundementals don’t really change here.
The best case you can probably make is "mckennie is much better than acosta so therefore he can do it too!" but…that’s not really how things have shaped up historically or currently when you plant players on worse teams where they are asked to "do more." The key here is that there are negative grades too.
Comment 1 reply
You've made some solid points here, but the opening line on "misrepresenting what half-spaces is" is wierd
I’ve used it exactly as you’ve described it. We can acknowledge context without needlessly burning everything down. Half-Spaces correctly notes that acosta did more, which paired with the team result: the biggest "Overperformance" of this cycle, gives acosta a strong argument iregardless of caveats. Your "acosta played more minuites" point doesn’t really work because acosta’s "per 90" score doubles mckennie’s. And, for posterity, let’s remember the events are weighed, so it’s not simply a matter of acosta "did something" though wehther contributions are weighed properly is an open question. While it is true that acosta’s circumstances gave him potential to do more good, it also gave him potential do more bad, so acosta’s highschore is not simply a matter of oppurtunity but also effiency which is harder to maintain as volume increases. All those potential chances to accumulate score also came with the chance to make a catastrophic mistake which would have sunk acosta’s score back down and rendered the minuites advantage moot. And it goes withotu saying that playing with worse players makes those sort of mistakes considerably more likely. While it’s fair to point out "solid player on worse team", leaving out the potential for "bad" which comes with more opprtunity is misleading.(Which is why, generally on these types of situations players are more likely to have a "negative" plus-minus than a positve one.) If it was as simple as "bad team → more points", musah should have also had a sky-high score in the panama game. Most of the time, even our best players see their half-space scores plummet when they play with lesser teammates. Weah had more to do vs jamaica away than he did vs mexico at home, yet his score was halved.
Also, it should be noted this is more akin to lebron on the 15 cavs or keylor navas carrying costa rica than it is to pulisic in the 18 cycle or rookie booker on the suns. The team dramtically overperformed. It is the combination of that holistic success and the production that makes acosta’s performance compelling. And we really can’t just assume that if we transpose mckennie’s perfomrnace in acosta’s context, that impact is replicated, even if he’s usually the much better player. Logically, the most likely result of shifting mckennie in acosta’s contest is that his effiency drops, he makes more negative plays and his score suffers. That’s not a knock on mckennie, that’s just how this usually goes, even for cl players. Acosta going the opposite direction is remarkable.
And while it was "mostly defense" acosta’s overall offense score still matched mckennie’s. Acosta also had the most touches, passes attempted, key passes, and created a goal. While it’s interesting that mckennie had a goog score in possession, that comes with hm being a negative "in transition". Whether that’s just noise, misallocation, or reflective of context is an open question.
n the GC, they knew they were "the better team", they knew we had no motivation or aspiration to do anything but muck up the match, and they had to come at us for 90 straight minutes. In doing so, they failed to get much purchase, especially as the game went on and they tightened up when they realized they couldn’t even dominate our third string, and Acosta (along with the entire back line/GK) deserves a shit-ton of credit for making them feel that pressure with his performance. However, it is quite simply easier to create clear cut chances on the counter attack when the other team tries to push so much forward because they don’t respect your quality and have a more desperate need to win than you do. It’s why every two-bit relegation-fighting team attempts to set up that way against Liverpool or Man City or even Arsenal or Man U, and why some of them even have success doing so. Counter-attacking is easily the best strategy in soccer … the only problem with it is you can’t do it unless your opponent gives you the chance to.
This is fair, but you’re ignoring the other side of this. If mexico was intentionally playing more cautiously, then the expected outcome is they too would create less. But Mexico’s xg from open play vs the us in the natinons league, was higher than mexico’s xg from open play in the gold cup and comparable overall. That subversion is again, not what should usually happen and that’s a reflection on acosta(and robinson"s) defense.
But I think McKennie’s performance was much more valuable and irreplaceable, because this isn’t something "on paper" can fully realize.
That’s….not what you’ve argued for. Your points work supporting "acosta’s superior statsistical profile and the team’s corresponding overperformance don’t definitively prove acosta’s play is better", but that alone doesn’t get us to "mckennie’s performance was better" and adding the "much" completely overplays the strength of your hand here. It’s not as simple as "bad team → more points" for the reasons discussed above. If we put nl mckennie in gc final acosta’s shoes, is it possible his score goed up? Yes. Is it likely? No.
Making the positive claim that mckennie’s performance was stronger or "more scarce" completely jumps the gun.
Comment 1 reply
Based on him performing like yueill against worse competition?
"7000 pro minuites later" doesn’t really mean anything on it’s own
though for a snapshot
The USA of caf is currently last in their gold cup group having just tied bermuda and lost to suriname and needs to beat the most talented team in concacaf to avoid finishing dead last.
Feel free to comment tomaisto7
Comment 2 replies
This is just insane
Imagine in a set of massive high stakes games with full strength a teams on nuetral ground, these were the results
Costa Rica 2-1 Suriname
Mexico 1-0 Cuba
USA 0-0 Bermuda
Jamaica 1-0 Guadelope
Costa Rica 4-1 French Guinea
Mexico 0-0 Suriname
Canada 2-0 antigua and barbuda
Jamaica 1-1 Suriname
Costa Rica 1-0 Curacoa
Jamaica 2-2 Bermuda
USA 0-1 Suriname
That’s afcon thus far
(analogs were made using elo, relative standing, on paper quality, narrative/history. EX: Algeria missed last world cup but are defending regional champs and went on a big unbeaten streak so = USA, Sengal did the best at the last world cup so Mexico. On paper, ivory coast works better as the us but they’ve gotten knocked out of the world cup by cameroon so whatever. Concacaf has a lot less teams and is more top heavy so these analogies are not perfect)
On a more serious note, watching the algeria vs eq guniea game, it’s almost like there’s no midfield which aligns with what i’ve seen from highlights and the ivory coast-cameroon game. There’s plenty of talented midfielders in the region so i’m starting to think this has something to do with coaching/cohesion
Comment 1 reply
1.) Yeah, i’m not really paying attention to what selfitled’s saying though he tends to link these after games
2.) Gregg’s "system" was phased out during semis vs qatar for "force turnovers in the opponent’s half" and that has always been plan a. "Possession" is a plan b when plan a doesn’t work. Possession was not the plan vs mexico in wcq. Gregg went for the same thing he did in the gold cup, it’s just that dramatically better players occupied the roles arriola, williamson, lleget, ect were taking up so we kept the ball more. Also, i’m not really sure how you’re makring this off as a win because we ended up being outpossessed vs mexico. If "lets keep possession" was really the plan we failed. And even if "lets keep possession" was the plan vs mexico in wcq, it was not the plan vs mexico in the gold cup so it doesn’t make sense to bring up possession as some sort of failure. And really, let’s not miss the forest for the trees. Gregg’s intentions aren’t really what matters, likelihood in winning does. Finally, even if you don’t accept any of what I said, it’s a hell of a stretch to use possession as a reason to prefer mckennie induvidually because weston mckennie was not the reason our possession jumped. Influincing "Possesion%" is completely outside of what he’s asked to do.
Comment 1 reply
Not sure why you're brining up possession here.
The point of the game is to score goals, and you score goals by creating chances, not possessing the ball. The us had the best chance of the first half and mexico’s best chances came from set pieces. Considering that our one of our attackers(hoppe) wasn’t effectively pressing, and that we had a near nuetral and negative defender in midfield, as well as a liability alongside robinson in the back, it should be clear who was the key to us creating all these chances by consistently winning the ball everywhere(a state that was true for the entireity of the 90). But just for posterity,
Setting aside how ahead of the indvidual "mma" members acosta’s rating is, he has a "13.5" out of possession and his tied for tops in transition o. Now, let’s get back to that possesio number you referenced. How is it possible for a team to be completely outpossesed yet match another team in the run of play? Oh, right, winning the ball back(which acosta did way, way better than everyone else on the field) and quickly hitting them back in trainsition, "transition o". Setting aside how he had close to twice as many "events" as anyone else, the most duels won, touches(both by a large margin), the ability for the us to play evenly with mexico and control the game for the last hour despite being completely-outalented at every position comes directly from the things we know acosta was doing as well or way better than everyone else on the pitch. Can you say that was even close to the case to mckennie induvdiually? no, not really, which is why…
And, I think that the MMA midfield in the Mexico and Costa Rica WCQ was superior to Acosta’s performance in the GC Mexico game.
you’re comparing three midfielders to one.
You’re also brining up possession, something which "mckennie" was not the most influential player for. Mckennie is someone who *capitalizes on possession. Musah and Adams play a bigger role in retaining the ball and adams plays the biggest role in winning it back. Again, you’re using a collective performance to elevate an induvidual performance. Mckennie was good, he waa not dominant, despite being in a perfect setting for dominance. Much of the team’s success revolved around things mckennie isn’t asked to do. As opposed to the gold cup where the team’s succes was almost entirely depdent on the things acosta does. It is "easily" better when you seperate out the collective from the induvdiual. It’s as self-evident as any other comparison is
We were outplayed in the first half
We dominated the Mexico game.
It’s funny, because the way you describe each game completely applies to the other. Mexico had the best two chances in the first half and were able to create out of our press(as opposed to the gold cup game where they couldn’t get past acosta but acosta’s teammates couldn’t link passes and they got set pieces). Then after mexico wilted the us completely took over though with the wcq game it was on the basis of quality ball progression(musah), pressure(adams), and elite off-ball running, and 1v1 cdecision making(weah) while in the gc it was basiclaly down to winning the ball back and quicly getting it in the final third(acosta).
The games are basically the same except for the fact that acosta had worse teammates and acosta had a mjuch bigger role in the outcome. Accordingly, he got the more impressive team result, and his performance statstically outclasses mckennie whether you go conventionally(touches, duels, tackles, passes, ect) or you look at a more comprehensive plus minus. That seems like a pretty "obvious" comparison to me.
Comment 1 reply
Somewhat fair, but it's not like mckennie only had help in midfield
Pulisic was still dropping back and led the team in touches drawing signifcant attention away from mckennie. Reyna was there. Brooks was at his high point form wise and was offering excellent distribution and sargent offered strong link up play and pressure. Is that really worse than lleget, arriola, skc busio, shaq more and george bello? Tyler adams came on and had an impmact over the last 30 minuites of the game. Who were the gold cup subsitutes? The only real supporting talent acosta had was miles robinson, matt turner and matthew hoppe.
And ultimately, mexico completely ran the run of play in the nl. Mckennie showed up in spots the most of the players on the field but he wasn’t at all able to influence the game consistently as reflected by us getting woefully outcreated outside of set pieces.
We had a much stronger performance in the gc and controlled the state of the game for the last hour essentially on the back of acosta’s presence. It’s just not the same type of impact. And besides our far better chance creation in the rematch(caused almost entirely from pressing), this is also reflected in the granular stuff:
Acosta’s rating completely blows out anyone from the other games out of the water. including the wcq game where the context heavily favored mckennie. This is a complete overthinking. Acosta essentially pulled up with the 18 cavs and then had a press of williamson(okay mls defender) and llegeet(literally a negative) put mexico in the mud. And if there was any doubt, he literally creates the difference in the scoreline at the very end.
Comment 1 reply, 1 rec
Is dominating mexico for an hour with a c team better than having moments against mexico with an a team?
Yes, yes it is. Acosta’s defense was still strong in the first half and the second half elevates it past any mid performance we’ve had this year. And then for the capper, he creates the winner in extra time.
You’re starting with a conclusion and then forcing reality to conform.