U.S. National Team Thread VI #fireJurgen

Basement Cat

Frank Drebin
Nov 3, 2008
12,510
531
Hoboken, NJ
Because he looks like an attacker you want running into space, not someone controlling the possession through traffic in the middle of the pitch of a game in which you'll be playing against the ball 95% of the time. As for the goal he scored, wasn't that playing off the wing? Not that it would be anything but bizarre to use to argue for his inclusion at the 8, either way; since goals are very far down the list of priorities for that position, but still. I'm pretty sure that goal came with him playing further up the pitch and out wide.



I can see that, was the other CM a more defensively oriented box to boxer with Nagbe in a more free role to create? In that role I can see him having success in the MLS. But that's a very different job than partnering Bradley in a double-6 for the NT.

His best role is as an 8. For Portland, when they try to play him on the wing, he is a mixed bag. When they moved him to the 8, with a #10 in front of him and a #6 behind him, they won the MLS Cup. For club and country that is by far his best position imo. When he came on against Ecuador it was not on the wing. Unfortunately, the USMNT does not have a CAM as good as Diego Valeri, so I would play Nagbe in a system where there is a dedicated 6 (Bradley) and another box to box guy next to Nagbe (Jones), if we had a must win game tomorrow.
 

Brock Anton

flames #badnwagon
Nov 8, 2009
21,119
10,869
Westerly, RI
I can see that, was the other CM a more defensively oriented box to boxer with Nagbe in a more free role to create? In that role I can see him having success in the MLS. But that's a very different job than partnering Bradley in a double-6 for the NT against Argentina.

The other midfielder was Diego Valeri, pretty much a pure No. 10 (a very good one at that). Nagbe was playing the more box to box role, but with Chara's ability to cover ground, he wasn't really needed that much defensively. I agree with the second part, He wouldn't be effective in a flat 4-4-2 against anyone really, let alone Argentina. Especially next to a guy like Bradley. He either needs to be a #8 in a 4-3-3 or a #10 in a 4-3-2-1.
 

Live in the Now

Registered User
Dec 17, 2005
53,030
7,489
LA
It's hilarious that you think Klinsmann is being paid four times as much as Bradley to make an incremental improvement in our play (which he hasn't even achieved).

That's part of it. The other part was to make sure we didn't have any other Giuseppe Rossi situations and to lure in every player with a sliver of American nationality to play for us. He 100% succeeded in that and that part is not even in dispute.
 

Basement Cat

Frank Drebin
Nov 3, 2008
12,510
531
Hoboken, NJ
The other midfielder was Diego Valeri, pretty much a pure No. 10. Nagbe was playing the more box to box role, but with Chara's ability to cover ground, he wasn't really needed that much defensively. I agree with the second part, He wouldn't be effective in a flat 4-4-2 against anyone really, let alone Argentina. Especially next to a guy like Bradley. He either needs to be a #8 in a 4-3-3 or a #10 in a 4-3-2-1.

Don't think anyone here advocated putting him next to Bradley in a flat 4-4-2 on Tuesday. That would have been almost as stupid as Beckerman with Bradley in a flat 4-4-2.
 

Live in the Now

Registered User
Dec 17, 2005
53,030
7,489
LA
Dempsey? I disagree. He didn't really breakout as a really reliable goal scorer until 2010-11. Bradley is arguable, but peak Bradley IMO was when he was at Chievo and his first year at Roma ... both under Klinsmann.

Dempsey made some big contributions to Fulham's season the year before the WC and was also in his physical prime. The chipped goal against Juventus is the one I'm thinking of in particular.

Because unlike Bradley, Klinsmann actually had better options, and he left them at home. In no, way, shape or form should Wondo have been in the squad over Morris (hell, even Finlay and Kiesewetter would have been a better options). Wondo can't do anything but play up top, Morris would have slotted in for Wood perfectly as they play similar games and are versatile. We wouldn't have had to completely change our gameplan with Wood being suspended had Morris been there. Then he trotted out a formation that in no way helped Beckerman succeed. Everyone knows that Beckerman doesn't have the legs to cover the ground necessary in a 4-4-2, especially against a team with the quality of Argentina. It was a disaster waiting to happen. Again, that goes back to bringing in Wondo, his lack of versatility changed everything. I like Beckerman, but he's past it, and you could make the argument that bringing him (or Kitchen) over Danny Williams was a mistake as well. Williams would have been as close to a like-for-like replacement for Jones as we have.

It was also his fault in Brazil for not bringing a true backup for Jozy. He had Eddie Johnson and Terrence Boyd who could/would have filled that role ... but again, we got Wondo.

I agree with this part. Like I said before, I don't care about Klinsmann being the manager one way or another and I really don't like him. But I think we've had a decline in terms of player quality, especially at the top of the team. So I judge him and his results based on that. He could have brought other players, but in this particular game I don't know what more we could have gotten. A couple shots? I don't believe in moral victories so I'd feel the same about that as I do about the way the game actually happened.
 

Ugmo

Registered User
Oct 24, 2011
12,300
0
That's part of it. The other part was to make sure we didn't have any other Giuseppe Rossi situations and to lure in every player with a sliver of American nationality to play for us. He 100% succeeded in that and that part is not even in dispute.

Now if there was ever an unsustainable strategy for elevating the national team, it's trying to convince enough people with dual passports to choose the Team USA.

Thank God we ended up with Mix Diskerud and have to name him to every US roster now matter how badly he's been playing.
 

Live in the Now

Registered User
Dec 17, 2005
53,030
7,489
LA
Now if there was ever an unsustainable strategy for elevating the national team, it's trying to convince enough people with dual passports to choose the Team USA.

Thank God we ended up with Mix Diskerud and have to name him to every US roster now matter how badly he's been playing.
He wasn't on this one, so you seem woefully misinformed.

Would be hilarious to read the complaining around here if we didn't have any of those players. We wouldn't even qualify for the WC and wouldn't have won a single game at the last one without any of them.
 

NJDevs26

Once upon a time...
Mar 21, 2007
67,117
31,153
A lot. His mission wasn't to elevate our program, it was to get better results. Whether or not we have is arguable. While everyone is reminiscing about Bob Bradley, we should point out that in his last Gold Cup we got completely beat the **** down and embarrassed by our biggest rivals. We should also point out that we got embarrassed in Copa America.

Well really it's both, considering he's also the technical director and has his hands in everything from the MNT to youth squads and development. And honestly the development's been somewhat of a dissapointment to this point. Most of the young players haven't progressed yet and they're still overreliant on Dempsey and Bradley, not to mention they clearly missed Howard and the oft-injured Altidore in recent months. You won't be seeing the US in Rio, although maybe that's a good thing with all the problems there. Results have been up and down for the MNT, mostly down since 2014. This tournament wasn't so much a step up as avoiding another step back.

And honestly to address the other post I don't think Klinsmann gets a free pass at all. Certainly coming into this tournament there were a lot of calls for his head.
 

Live in the Now

Registered User
Dec 17, 2005
53,030
7,489
LA
Well really it's both, considering he's also the technical director and has his hands in everything from the MNT to youth squads and development. And honestly the development's been somewhat of a dissapointment to this point. Most of the young players haven't progressed yet and they're still reliant on Dempsey and Bradley. You won't be seeing the US in Rio, although maybe that's a good thing with all the problems there. Results have been up and down for the MNT, mostly down since 2014. This tournament wasn't so much a step up as avoiding another step back.

And honestly to address the other post I don't think Klinsmann gets a free pass at all. Certainly coming into this tournament there were a lot of calls for his head.

The youth squads have a lot of problems but player development isn't the job of the US program. It's the job of the clubs/schools these players are at to develop the players, that's where the players spend all their time. Subsequently it is then the jobs of the people of US Soccer to get the best results in the tournaments they play in, and to pick the best squads they can. That is their only job IMO.

We should have qualified for the Olympics though.
 

Ugmo

Registered User
Oct 24, 2011
12,300
0
He wasn't on this one, so you seem woefully misinformed.

Would be hilarious to read the complaining around here if we didn't have any of those players. We wouldn't even qualify for the WC and wouldn't have won a single game at the last one without any of them.

Why would we "not have any of those players"? We've always had foreign-born players. Which of those players do we have right now who would otherwise be good enough to play for the countries of their birth - Jones? Nope. Johnson? Doubtful. Brooks? Doubtful.

You're basically left with Zelalem and Green, neither of whom had anything to do with either qualifying for the WC or winning any of the games.

I mean seriously, if you're trying to avoid a Rossi-type situation, the only player who is even potentially in that league is Zelalem.
 

Live in the Now

Registered User
Dec 17, 2005
53,030
7,489
LA
The other option is that we ignore them and nobody calls them up when we could use them. That's happened quite a bit.

Why would we "not have any of those players"? We've always had foreign-born players. Which of those players do we have right now who would otherwise be good enough to play for the countries of their birth - Jones? Nope. Johnson? Doubtful. Brooks? Doubtful.

You're basically left with Zelalem and Green, neither of whom had anything to do with either qualifying for the WC or winning any of the games.

You say "we've always had them" so where were they in 2010 when we could have used them? The point is to make sure none of them get away again. Players like Subotic who should have played for the US should never have the chance to play somewhere else. Ibisevic says he'd have played for the US, sure coulda used him. Johansson is another who Klinsmann called up, but he was injured leading up to this.

John Brooks had everything to do with winning a game. More deflection. It pains you so much to say Klinsmann has done his job even in one facet, so it shows that your comments are entirely lacking rationality.

Edit: The US has also made sure players like Cameron Carter-Vickers, Luis Gil, Matt Miazga, Rubio Rubin all don't wind up playing for another youth NT when they could have. And that's where all this **** starts.
 
Last edited:

Ugmo

Registered User
Oct 24, 2011
12,300
0
You say "we've always had them" so where were they in 2010 when we could have used them? The point is to make sure none of them get away again. Players like Subotic who should have played for the US should never have the chance to play somewhere else.

Since we both qualified for World Cup 2010 and won a game, this is some nice goalpost-shifting.

John Brooks had everything to do with winning a game. More deflection. It pains you so much to say Klinsmann has done his job even in one facet, so it shows that your comments are entirely lacking rationality.

No, John Brooks a) would have never been playing for Germany in the first place an b) was 17 during the 2010 World Cup, so he wouldn't have been playing in that one for the U.S.

The U.S. has a long history of bringing in dual nationals, from Wegerle to Tom Dooley to Earnie Stewart to David Wagner. Klinsmann hasn't attracted a single dual national apart from Zelalem who ever had a shot at playing for a major national team and whom other U.S. national team coaches wouldn't also have been able to attract. If that's why we're paying the guy four times the salary of his predecessor (because it certainly isn't because he's improved our playing style), I would suggest it's wasted money.
 

Brock Anton

flames #badnwagon
Nov 8, 2009
21,119
10,869
Westerly, RI
Where were they in 2010?

- Jones was in the set up, but injured for South Africa. Would have been a lock starter had he been fit.
- Diskerud had just joined the U.S. setup for the U-20's in 2009, nowhere near ready for the senior side.
- Chandler was ~6 months away from debuting, and with Cherundolo at RB, he wasn't yet needed (was playing for Frankfurt's reserves anyways).
- Castillo wasn't really playing that much for America, and with Boca at LB (and w/BB's love for Bornstein), he wasn't going to make it barring an injury.

As for Klinsmann's dual-nats: Johnson was just with the German U-21's the year before, so he may have felt he had a future there, Williams was toiling in Freiburg's reserves, Brooks was 17 years old and Johannsson was an unknown youth player for Iceland. Only maybe Johnson would have made any difference in 2010, and that is probably a stretch.
 

Live in the Now

Registered User
Dec 17, 2005
53,030
7,489
LA
Since we both qualified for World Cup 2010 and won a game, this is some nice goalpost-shifting.

:laugh:

We could have used foreign-born players to do even better. I am not sure if you are understanding.

No, John Brooks a) would have never been playing for Germany in the first place an b) was 17 during the 2010 World Cup, so he wouldn't have been playing in that one for the U.S.

:laugh:

The U.S. has a long history of bringing in dual nationals, from Wegerle to Tom Dooley to Earnie Stewart to David Wagner. Klinsmann hasn't attracted a single dual national apart from Zelalem who ever had a shot at playing for a major national team and whom other U.S. national team coaches wouldn't also have been able to attract. If that's why we're paying the guy four times the salary of his predecessor (because it certainly isn't because he's improved our playing style), I would suggest it's wasted money.

Define major. I listed some younger players at the end of the last post when I edited it. Does it matter as long as they're good enough to play for us? Fabian Johnson did have a shot, he wouldn't have been in the German youth teams for so long if he wasn't. Same with John Brooks getting called by theirs, you don't know how things would have turned out. Robert Huth played for Germany after all. Fact is we needed them and got them.

I agree, it's wasted money because the NT manager has very little to do with whether or not an NT is successful or not. I am not exactly sure which parts of this you are not understanding.
 

Live in the Now

Registered User
Dec 17, 2005
53,030
7,489
LA
Where were they in 2010?
As for Klinsmann's dual-nats: Johnson was just with the German U-21's the year before, so he may have felt he had a future there, Williams was toiling in Freiburg's reserves, Brooks was 17 years old and Johannsson was an unknown youth player for Iceland. Only maybe Johnson would have made any difference in 2010, and that is probably a stretch.

I wasn't only talking about Klinsmann's. I was talking about all of them, including the ones who had chosen a long time ago. Klinsmann was hired in part to make sure that kind of thing didn't happen again and has been successful in making sure of that so far.
 

Brock Anton

flames #badnwagon
Nov 8, 2009
21,119
10,869
Westerly, RI
I wasn't only talking about Klinsmann's. I was talking about all of them, including the ones who had chosen a long time ago. Klinsmann was hired in part to make sure that kind of thing didn't happen again and has been successful in making sure of that so far.

I'm not denying that. Certainly his name and stature has been a boost into getting these guys into the U.S. system. I was just answering your question of where the dual national players (that we currently have) were in 2010.
 

Ugmo

Registered User
Oct 24, 2011
12,300
0
:laugh:

We could have used foreign-born players to do even better. I am not sure if you are understanding.

What foreign players could we have had in 2010 who would have made us any better? Ibisevic left the country before he ever became a citizen, and wouldn't have been eligible anyway. Subotic would have been great, but he felt Thomas Rongen betrayed him to the point at which he no longer wanted to play for the U.S. Would Klinsmann have been able to convince him otherwise? Who knows. Jermaine Jones was injured. Who else was Bradley supposed to call in? You appear to be specifically critizing him for failing to come up with major foreign-born additions to the team - who was even an option apart from possibly Subotic? And don't say Rossi. Rossi went to Italy as a kid because he always wanted to play for Italy.




Which part of this do you find amusing... you think Brooks would ever have had a legitimate shot at representing Germany in 2014, or indeed for any length of time? Why would it specifically take Klinsmann to make this argument to him?


Define major. I listed some younger players at the end of the last post when I edited it. Does it matter as long as they're good enough to play for us? Fabian Johnson did have a shot, he wouldn't have been in the German youth teams for so long if he wasn't. Same with John Brooks getting called by theirs, you don't know how things would have turned out. Robert Huth played for Germany after all. Fact is we needed them and got them.

It's possible that Brooks and Johnson would have gotten a shot with the senior team, I suppose, although it would have been far less likely than a long career with the U.S. Why do you think a different U.S. coach wouldn't have attempted/succeeded in winning them over? Like I said, we've had plenty of foreign-born players in the past.


I agree, it's wasted money because the NT manager has very little to do with whether or not an NT is successful or not. I am not exactly sure which parts of this you are not understanding.

What do you mean by manager... coach? If so, that's a bizarre statement. Technical director? Also a bizarre statement. Why does any national team have a technical director then?
 

Live in the Now

Registered User
Dec 17, 2005
53,030
7,489
LA
Which part of this do you find amusing... you think Brooks would ever have had a legitimate shot at representing Germany in 2014, or indeed for any length of time? Why would it specifically take Klinsmann to make this argument to him?

The part where players decide their national team based on one World Cup is the part I find funny. It doesn't specifically take Klinsmann, but it obviously takes somebody with gravitas and it probably played a part.

It's possible that Brooks and Johnson would have gotten a shot with the senior team, I suppose, although it would have been far less likely than a long career with the U.S. Why do you think a different U.S. coach wouldn't have attempted/succeeded in winning them over? Like I said, we've had plenty of foreign-born players in the past.

See above

What do you mean by manager... coach? If so, that's a bizarre statement. Technical director? Also a bizarre statement. Why does any national team have a technical director then?

To make sure all the youth national teams are playing the same style as the senior team, to make sure certain players are in the youth national teams, monitoring talent to see how things are going, etc. It's kind of a bogus title though. The success of our national team will ultimately be determined by what youth coaches in our country do with the players that sign up to play youth soccer and Klinsmann/US Soccer has zero control over that. They can say whatever they want about his involvement with the program but other than picking the squads, lineups, and making sure players play for America, it doesn't mean anything.
 

Ugmo

Registered User
Oct 24, 2011
12,300
0
The part where players decide their national team based on one World Cup is the part I find funny. It doesn't specifically take Klinsmann, but it obviously takes somebody with gravitas and it probably played a part.

Guys like Johnson and Brooks have no guarantee that they're going to play in any World Cup, let alone several of them. With Klinsmann obviously making that guarantee to people like Julian Green, it's a pretty damned good argument. And one that any USMNT head coach could make to a lesser/bubble player in Germany.


To make sure all the youth national teams are playing the same style as the senior team, to make sure certain players are in the youth national teams, monitoring talent to see how things are going, etc. It's kind of a bogus title though. The success of our national team will ultimately be determined by what youth coaches in our country do with the players that sign up to play youth soccer and Klinsmann/US Soccer has zero control over that. They can say whatever they want about his involvement with the program but other than picking the squads, lineups, and making sure players play for America, it doesn't mean anything.

Yeah, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln enjoyed the play.
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
59,988
19,060
w/ Renly's Peach
His best role is as an 8. For Portland, when they try to play him on the wing, he is a mixed bag. When they moved him to the 8, with a #10 in front of him and a #6 behind him, they won the MLS Cup. For club and country that is by far his best position imo. When he came on against Ecuador it was not on the wing. Unfortunately, the USMNT does not have a CAM as good as Diego Valeri, so I would play Nagbe in a system where there is a dedicated 6 (Bradley) and another box to box guy next to Nagbe (Jones), if we had a must win game tomorrow.

The other midfielder was Diego Valeri, pretty much a pure No. 10 (a very good one at that). Nagbe was playing the more box to box role, but with Chara's ability to cover ground, he wasn't really needed that much defensively. I agree with the second part, He wouldn't be effective in a flat 4-4-2 against anyone really, let alone Argentina. Especially next to a guy like Bradley. He either needs to be a #8 in a 4-3-3 or a #10 in a 4-3-2-1.

Interesting. I guess I under-estimate just how up-n-down the MLS is...or maybe I under-estimate Nagbe's control in tight spaces. In either case playing him and Johnson as 8s in front of Bradley should have been a consideration, although that may not have done much for the sloppiness of your build up play if Valeri and Chara carry more of that responsibility in Portland, and Klinsi wouldn't be the first international coach unwilling to make such radical changes in such a big match.
 
Last edited:

Basement Cat

Frank Drebin
Nov 3, 2008
12,510
531
Hoboken, NJ
Interesting. I guess I under-estimate just how up-n-down the MLS is...or maybe I understand Nagbe's control in tight spaces. In either case playing him and Johnson as 8s in front of Bradley should have been a consideration, although that may not have done much for the sloppiness of your build up play if Valeri and Chara carry more of that responsibility in Portland, and Klinsi wouldn't be the first international coach unwilling to make such radical changes in such a big match.

I'd say that in Portland, Nagbe carries as much of the build-up responsibility as anyone else in the midfield. Chara, while being a decent distributor, usually lays it off to Nagbe who is good at finding open spaces. Then, he typically finds Valeri further up the field or sprays it out wide. I don't know what to call him in proper football terminology, but I think of him as a "connector" of sorts. He links up the backline with the attack very fluidly and is a good dribbler in tight spaces; easily the best in the US pool when it comes to center mids (maybe Zelalem is close?).

I love the idea of your suggested midfield trio. The problem is we need to address the left back situation in a hurry. Villafana is a favorite of mine for that spot but we will need to see what Jurgen does with it. I am fine with Besler there for some games in World Cup Qualifying.

Something like:

----------Dempsey
Wood----------------Zardes
-------Nagbe----Fabian
------------Bradley
Besler-Brooks-Cameron-Yedlin

Then eventually Pulisic steps into the starting XI for Dempsey (shift Wood to striker and Pulisic to LW)
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->