- Joined: Sep 6, 2021
- Last Login: Dec 29, 2021, 5:03pm EST
- Comments: 260
Share this profile
Comment 1 reply, 1 rec
Whether or not the win in the GC final should carry more weight is a perfectly reasonable take, but the xG claim is incorrect
We only created 1.85 in Gold Cup final. We actually had more xG in the Nations League final than Mexico did
I don't think there's an official date yet, but someone can fact check me on that
From what I previously saw the draw date was to take place around April, but if the playoffs aren’t taking place until June, that doesn’t make sense. It’s possible they put a cut off date of when FIFA rankings are to be updated (the draw might be in June, but will base it off April rankings for example). If it flat out starts in June I think Nations League for both CONCACAF and UEFA will be starting back up by then.
Comment 1 reply, 2 recs
The amazing thing is it's possible to know whether or not that's exactly the case BEFORE THE GAME STARTS
Portugal and Italy most likely will both play earlier in the day. If they both lose, that for all intents and purposes will be the stakes for that game (A draw in most scenarios favor the US, but not by much). Now the likelihood of that happening is stupidly small, but what a storyline that would be.
Comment 1 rec
I'm aware that it's still going to be extremely cold and that's a potential issue
All I was doing was indicating that snow was most likely not going to be an issue because of the systems Minnesota has in place so the field should be in fairly good conditions regardless of weather.
Comment 1 reply, 4 recs
Some potential FIFA ranking implications for the next window:
Currently US is 11th with 1649. They will be trying to hopefully surpass Portugal (1660) as much as they can so if Portugal is the one that beats Italy the US still has an outside chance of Pot 1. In terms of points we can get:
Win all 3 games- we finish with 1669 points and are assured to be in 8th at the end of the window and gives us at least a reasonable chance of finishing qualification ahead of Portugal even if they beat Italy (which means nothing if Italy qualifies, but hey 8th place!).
Win against El Sal and Hon, Draw Canada-This is what the simulations predict and this would give us 1656 (we lose points if we draw Canada due to the gap between the two teams). Very unlikely to pass Portugal if they end up beating Italy in this scenario.
Any other result-We lose about double digits from where we started and will have virtually no chance of Pot 1. Both Italy and Portugal would have to be eliminated along with us having to somehow finish ahead of both Mexico and Denmark.
A note that Mexico is predicted to win all 3 of their games to finish with 1660 and be virtually tied with Portugal (Portugal would be ahead by a few decimal points) so if they win all their games we do as well to keep pace.
Comment 1 reply, 1 rec
Minnesota also has a heating system for the field that can raise field temp to about 50 degrees at any time.
It was implemented to insure that the grass survives through the harsh winters. Not saying that makes it perfectly fine with no risk but it’s not like we’ll be playing in a re-make of the Costa Rica Snow Classico.
Comment 2 replies
Depending on who is available for us, a 9 point window is far more likely now
Our chances of being qualified by the end of the window, while still not very high, also just rose a good bit.
Comment 3 recs
First and most importantly I hope he recovers and has no future repercussions
Second though this is potentially huge for the Jan qualifiers. While not impossible, it’s going to be very unlikely he plays in the January qualifiers if that timeline is accurate. Canada can still pose a threat to us without him don’t get me wrong but it’s already hard enough to replace what he brings, and Canada really doesn’t have the depth that we do.
Comment 11 recs
The legwork was already done. Once again you just ignored it
This was previously posted above:
Statistically, Richards is the best defender out of the 4, and plays in a much tougher league. He might even be our best passer. Zimmerman is a pretty bang average defender outside of being elite in the air and is absolutely atrocious in possession. Robinson is a solid 3rd CB and is pushing Brooks."
The stats show without a doubt that both Richards and Brooks are overall better defenders than Zimmerman. You have yet to provide any actual raw data that supports the argument that Zimmerman is a better overall defender than Richards or Brooks.
Comment 8 recs
To put a bow on this conversation since you've again gone away from being in good faith:
The question is if his additional attributes can make up for the lack of goal scoring. How is this such a difficult thing to understand?
-I fully understand your question. In my opinion anything he brings does not make up for the lack of goal scoring. I’ve answered that multiple times, you just apparently don’t care. Considering you’ve made a judgement on Brooks from a single action, I don’t think you’re qualified to tell someone how narrow their world view is.
-That comment was about Miles mistake, so no idea why you brought Zimmerman and Arriola into it. I’ll just ignore that.
-A fluke occurrence is something unlikely occurring, and by a rule is unlikely to be repeated. I agree that Zardes’ mistake was a fluke, and he’s unlikely to repeat it. I also think Brooks mistake was a fluke, because based on his history I so no reason for him to repeat it on a consistent basis
-If you can’t grasp what I said I can’t help you. I can’t explain that point any better
-Everyone on that play reacted about a .5 out of 10. Everyone had 7 seconds of reaction time to make a better decision. They didn’t yet Brooks is the only name you mentioned.
-That’s rich. While I’m sure people on here aren’t fans of me, I’d be willing to bet that most other commentators would at least say that I support everything I say with research that I’m willing to share. The rest of your last comment shows me again you don’t read anything I say. You’ve based your entire argument on Brooks’ defensive effort on one play. I don’t know why you’ve attempted to bring in his club play to support your argument when you’re on the record admitting you don’t watch his games to have any idea whether or not that’s true. I have literally said over 5 times in this one thread why Brooks’ gaffe isn’t a problem. Because it was one gaffe. That was it. I don’t think his defensive effort is any less than Zimmeran’s because of it.
Comment 1 reply
You pretty much nailed why I asked the question
There was one comment made in bad faith, and while it was rec’d, the response defending MLS got about the same amount of recs at the time of this post. The Zimmerman defenders got more recs last time I looked at the other thread. You might be right about how sensitive he is to it (which I’m by no means judging if that ends up being the case), I just wanted to know since I didn’t see what he saw at all.
Comment 1 reply, 12 recs
And there we go. Brooks has to know better, but no one else has to
And I’m not talking about the comments other people made on the above mentioned players, I’m talking about your lack of criticism for those players based on the exact same level of mistake Brooks made.
-Arriola is seen as a leader by Gregg and has captained multiple times, but you don’t expect him to do better in front of goal at this point? This is a problem he’s repeated over and over again and you can overlook it but you can’t get past one mistake from Brooks? Any positive thing he can do is capable of being done by multiple other players at our disposal and all of them can arguably do them better. Do you not think Brooks brings anything else to the table?
-I’d expect a professional player to be able to execute a 10ft pass, the same as my expectation is for some to hustle back and defend. Yet you don’t think he should be held out of favor for it
-Please explain to me how Zardes’ play is a fluke but Brooks’ isn’t. I’d love to see that
-McKenzie was rightfully dragged through the mud according to you, but you won’t do it to the other examples. That’s my point.
-According to you no other players need to be held accountable other than the player that arguably made the best decision out of all of them in that circumstance.
And before someone says something, no this isn’t a case of "My opinion is right! Your opinion has to be wrong!". If you don’t like Brooks, it’s your opinion. Feel free to have it. However, when you call him out (over 50 times now) but are willing to defend others for literally the exact same mistakes, you are going to be called out for inconsistency.
Comment 2 replies, 13 recs
Comment 1 reply, 6 recs
I'm fully aware that Canada let us have possession with the intent to counter
However, as you refer to, how we use that possession is what matters, and has many ways it can end up being a positive. Players like Davies are going to get at least some chances no matter how well you play because of how good they are. If you are able to at least retain the possession they concede (like we did with Brooks) that will at least put a limit on how many the opponent can feasibly have. Still a waste if you can’t create your own scoring chances with it, but that’s a separate issue. If you just boot the ball back (as we saw with Zimmerman in Jamaica) you will give them more chances. To go more in depth of the games that I compared earlier:
USMNT vs Canada:
Possession-US 70% Canada 30%
Shots- US 11(2) Canda 6(2)
Exp Goals- US 1.66 Canada 1.52
Mexico vs Canada:
Possession- Mexico 54% Canada 46%
Shots- Mexico 11(4) Canada 8(4)
Exp Goals- Mexico .85 Canada 1.64
I can very easily make the argument that if we allowed 46% possession in our game against Canada we would have lost. Canada got all it could in the game against us with that limited possession, but the odds of any team scoring 2+ goals with 30% or less goes down considerably. In the 2018 World Cup only two teams scored 2 goals goals in a game with less than 35% possession (Morocco vs Spain with 30% and South Korea vs Germany with 30%) and only two more scored 2+ with less than 40% (Portugal vs Spain with 38% and Uruguay vs Portugal with 39%).
Comment 1 reply, 14 recs
If that's the argument you're going to use, let me ask you a question then
A mistake is a mistake, even if the other team didn’t capitalize on it, or if the team played well enough to overcome it. For example, if Larin misses the shot that Brooks allowed, or if the US scored a 2nd goal, it’s still an awful error. That doesn’t change. The final result of the game is what indicates just how quickly it’s forgiven, if it is at all. I think you’ll agree with that. If you are claiming that once is often enough, then why aren’t you making the same arguments for these players based on these plays?
Arriola missing a 1v1 against the keeper in the Gold Cup
Miles Robinson awful pass that got intercepted by Ruiz for a breakaway
Zardes scoring an own goal against Panama
Mckenzie gifting a goal in the Nations League
Any one of 4-5 players on the Honduras goal
You’ve criticized Brooks for his mistake over 20 times since he made it. Every single mistake I listed was just as egregious in the sense that it put the game in jeopardy, with the Zardes example actually leading to a loss. If one mistake is serious enough for you, why hasn’t there been the same amount of criticism for everyone listed above?
Comment 1 reply, 6 recs
Yup Brooks made a mistake. It happens. That's been made pretty evident.
However with that limited possession they were only able to cash in once though, and it took an awful moment from a defender for it to happen (two if you include Yedlin initially misplaying it as well). I can also make an argument that if Zimmerman played instead of Brooks we would have lost because we would have given them another 10+ opportunities due to him giving the ball away. We saw that in the Azteca when Canada has closer to 50% possession and should have won. The mistake Brooks made has been repeated probably 500+ times here, but that is the exception, not the rule. That is not something he has repeatedly done (the Honduras goal was a team failure, not just Brooks) to the point were we suddenly can’t depend on him. That’s what I really don’t get. Mistakes happen. Regardless of how terrible it was, I’m not in favor of making a change if it’s only a one-off. Mbappe missed a penalty kick that ruined France’s chances of winning the Euros, but I would absolutely still have him take on the next time they went to penalties. Brooks is a solid defender and certainly comparable to Zimmerman in any respect, and overall I would actually rate him better. If I comb through every single Zimmerman performance I’d also find a gaffe as egregious as what Brooks did. Doesn’t mean I would rate him lower on just that though. It would have to repeat itself. The US was winning that game against Canada. The game plan was working. As mentioned before, if the game plan that was working didn’t in one instance due to an error that doesn’t have evidence of it repeating itself/causing more issues, in my opinion you stay with that game plan.
Comment 2 replies, 7 recs
When making a tactical decision I think the CB pairing is more important than just one CB as a general rule, but I'll still answer yes
Obviously the Jamaica game injuries/cards/roster selections restricted who could play, but in either of those games you listed assuming we could pick whomever I want I would pick Richards and Brooks. The reason is keeping the ball away from the above mentioned dangerous players is more effective in my opinion than giving them multiple chances and hoping your defensive specialist matches their skill level. Zimmerman wasn’t marking Bailey 1v1 every single opportunity (the play he got potentially beat on and might have been saved by a lucky foul call wasn’t even Bailey), his job was to win crosses per the usual (and he’s great at that), but he HAD to be great at defending those due to how many possessions he gave up with his inferior long passing. Brooks and Richards are better at keeping possession which restricts the touches the attacking threats have. For me I’d rather have two very skilled defenders in their own right restrict the best attacking players by limiting their touches and only have to be called upon for 2-3 dangerous moments than depending on a specialist have to match the skill of the best attacking player for 6+ chances.
Comment 1 reply, 15 recs
I'd be more than happy to take that bet
I read basically every comment on every article on here. If you see one mention me by username after making your rebuttal to the initial comment so I can better understand your point of view. Assuming that’s ok with the moderators.
Comment 1 reply, 2 recs
Zimmerman currently would be on my World Cup roster. I don't disagree with you there.
That doesn’t mean that I think he should be starting assuming full health of everyone available. On paper the most effective pairing that hasn’t been tried yet would be Richards and Brooks, but we still need to see whether or not Brooks has completely fallen out of favor with Gregg/the team in general. Even then something like Miles and Richards gives more options for what we can see from the back line. For me Zimmerman is the 4th option on a World Cup roster were he comes in as a defensive replacement to see a win/draw out, or MAYBE starting against a team where we assume no possession and just defending for our lives. I don’t think Gregg has a MLS bias because he started Zimm (nor have I seen someone else make that point), but in games against teams where we will have possession you are putting the team at a higher chance for a disadvantage when you go all in on defense when there is not expectation of a true threat from the other team due to the said limitations he has on the ball. For example, our next game vs El Sal I would be hoping more for Miles/Richards or Brooks/Mckenzie than Zimm/any other CB.
Comment 4 replies, 9 recs
Genuinely asking: Where are you seeing all the anit-MLS sentiment to the point were you think it's toxic?
Because other than handful of instances I can count on 1 hand I haven’t seen someone outright do nothing but bash MLS/MLS players repeatedly for no good reason, and those were focused on individual players, not MLS as a whole. On a very recent thread there was a comment saying the Zimmerman wasn’t any good and multiple people who have been active on this site for a LONG time defended him to give a recent example. I’ve also never seen a post along the lines of "MLS SUCKS!" get 20 recs. I haven’t seen many of those period. I’m just curious were you get the idea of why you think the way you do about this community.
Comment 1 reply
There is a bonus from both FIFA and USSF.
The USWNT is fighting for both bonuses to be equal, but the chances of the FIFA bonus changing is incredibly slim (and if I’m reading into into it correctly, they are aware of this. Doesn’t hurt to try though). However with the USSF they certainly could make it even:
"U.S. Soccer offers bonuses to each team based on different wins throughout the World Cup tournament. The USWNT players each received about $250,000 in bonus payment for the World Cup, according to the Times. Under the men’s team’s collective bargaining agreement, players receive $3,000 more if they lose a Wold Cup qualifying match than what women earn for winning, the Post reports."
I agree that Adams and Bradley offer different portfolios. I just think Adams has more to offer overall.
I’ll also agree that Bradley was the better passer (Adams could become better, but he’s not yet). However, that really did next to nothing to help us break down low blocks. That 2014 cycle had very similar results to now:
3rd round: Lost to Jamaica away, only beat them 1-0 at home via a free kick from Herculez Gomez of all people, Guatemala scored the opening goal against us at home and drew us away
Hex: Lost to Honduras away, only beat them 1-0 at home in a very weak win (actually just re-watched it a few days ago. I didn’t remember the game being as bad)
Comment 1 rec
At this point in time not really. That could change come 2026.
Assuming a higher ceiling refers to being a reasonable favorite to get to the quarters (or more), that would entail us being or becoming one of the best 8-10 teams overall, and I don’t think we are there yet. We are closer to dark horse teams like Denmark and Switzerland than say Mexico or Columbia at this point, but even those teams wouldn’t be favored against the likes of Brazil and France on a regular basis at this time. That’s the problem. We are now one of the best 2nd place teams in the Group Stage, but still not expected to do anything against a group winner. Of the "knockout" level teams (11-20) Switzerland are the only ones who have gotten results recently against teams considered World Cup favorites (beat France on penalties and took Spain to them as well) and they got curb-stomped by Italy. Denmark is capable of it but had very terrible circumstances during the Euros that affected how well they did. Until we can say the USMNT is unquestionably on the same ground as them or better, it leans towards our ceiling still being the knockout rounds.
Comment 1 reply
It's the present team for me. Not by a ton, but they're still better
One of the biggest factors is the CB-6 trio. G. Cameron, Matt Besler, and Michael Bradley do not come close to John Brooks, M. Rob, and Adams. That 2014 midfield/wings also had players like Zusi, Beckerman, and Brad Davis starting multiple World Cup games due to lack of other options. They would not be starting any game played with a full strength current squad, if even make the roster overall.
Comment 1 rec
Ties it up after missing one earlier right before halftime