Scuffed | USMNT, World Cup, Yanks Abroad, futbol in America - #214: TSS Crossover Part 1 — USMNT questions galore

Episode Date: October 28, 2021

Taylor Rockwell and Joe Lowery of the Total Soccer Show join Greg and Belz to discuss Berhalter’s regret about the Panama lineup, the US men’s midfield, how to play away Concacaf qualifiers, midfield analytics versus goalkeeping analytics, the US men’s midfield, one word to describe Berhalter’s tenure, our own histories with the game, the golden generation vs the endless generation debate, and of course, the US men’s midfield.Find Part 2 later today on the TSS feed: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/total-soccer-show-usmnt-champions-league-epl-and-more/id327466681support Scuffed on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/scuffedjoin the Discord: https://discord.gg/X6tfzkM8XU buy our merch: https://my-store-11446477.creator-spring.com/ Skip the ads! Subscribe to Scuffed on Patreon and get all episodes ad-free, plus any bonus episodes. Patrons at $5 a month or more also get access to Clip Notes, a video of key moments on the field we discuss on the show, plus all patrons get access to our private Discord server, live call-in shows, and the full catalog of historic recaps we've made: https://www.patreon.com/scuffedAlso, check out Boots on the Ground, our USWNT-focused spinoff podcast headed up by Tara and Vince. They are cooking over there, you can listen here: https://boots-on-the-ground.simplecast.comAnd check out our MERCH, baby. We have better stuff than you might think: https://www.scuffedhq.com/store Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to the Scuffed podcast. I'm Adam Bells in Georgia. With me is Greg Velasquez in Iowa. We talk about U.S. men's soccer. Welcome to another crossover episode of Scuffed in The Total Soccer Show. Guys, how are you? I'm sore, man. I played soccer last night and every single week I play. I'm like next week, though, I'm going to stretch and get there early. And then I never do. So now I'm sore, but I feel better knowing that we're going to talk out the U.S. national team. It makes me feel better. I'm not, I'm not sore. I'm in kind of a giggly mood, and I'm also dehydrated. Right before we started recording listeners, Bell's told everyone we had to be very honest about how we're doing. And that's about as honest as I get, Bells. I'm a little dehydrated and I'm kind of in a giggling.

Thank you for your honesty, Joe. Yeah, you got it, man. Well, I'm just excited for yet another opportunity to go in front of a whole new audience that I can bore with some ELO calculations. We are going to take a bunch of questions and split this into two episodes, just like we did last time. This time, the first one will be on the scuffed feed, and the second one will be on the total soccer show feed. Let's go. Question number one from Dallin in San Antonio

In his interview with Bobby Warshaw Greg, that's Greg with 4 G's at the end of it, was asked about the Panama lineup and said, I think we got the lineup wrong, not in making changes, but in who we changed. I think there were some guys that weren't in the best form who played in the game, and we had other options that could have potentially performed better

while still resting other players. What does the scuffed TSS GGGG mind reader think he meant by this? let's start with you Taylor I think first of all Greg Burrhalter is very good at giving detailed answers that don't end up revealing all that much and this is one of those examples where I think he told us a specific thing

but then kept it general from there my assumption would be looking at the changes he did make and the players that came out which was Adams for Musa Aronson for Ariola I think he is implying that probably Kellen Acosta should have been substituted and probably Sebastian Leget as well and I think he was trying to

mitigate the blame a little bit by saying that their form was off and things like that. But I think that is what he is referencing that maybe Tyler Adams comes in. You keep Eunice Musa in there. You bring in somebody else for Sebastian Legit, and you have a more solid midfield that is played together more consistently. Yeah. Taylor, I mean, Joe. I think Berlter is making a fair point, right?

Within the idea that rotation is important in resting players as important, and Bells and Greg, you guys have done a good job of discussing that on your show and going through the different permutations that could happen and making your own. And I genuinely appreciate you guys doing that stuff. Resting players is important. And one thing that Buralter talked about on that show with Bobby is saying how the physical numbers and the output was off the charts for the Costa Rica game. And I guess we don't really know if that's true or not.

But Burrater doesn't have a ton of reason to lie about something that specific on a podcast. So I think there is value and merit in changing players. I think, though, you can still argue. you that rotating the full seven players, seven, all of those players being outfield players, was a little excessive. And at the same time, I still don't know that any of the individual changes or a small set of personnel changes that Barthor seems to be referencing that he wished he'd done differently. I don't know if any one of those things would have had a dramatic effect on that game.

I mean, the options that could have played instead of guys who did play, DeAndre Yedlin could have started instead of Shaq Moore, Luca Delo Torre could have started instead of Legat. Buccio could have started over Acosta. I don't think that was ever going to happen. I'd be shocked if Beralta really regrets that. Richards over McKenzie would have been another option. I mean, none of those, to me, feel like game-changing changes. And maybe that's just me being blind or not fully understanding what all went wrong.

But for me, it was much less about who was playing in that game as to why I went wrong and more so about a lot of the team-wide problems that Borelter talked about towards the end of that podcast and that both of our shows have gone into in some detail. Yeah, I think that scans. And for me, again, even the initials, lineup choices. I don't have, we don't have all the information about form. And I'm kind of assuming that Burhalter's talking about like literally how they are playing that week in camp. We don't have all that information. The initial lineup that he trotted out, like I didn't have

that many issues with. If he had seen guys playing better in camp, but maybe he didn't trust him as much because he doesn't have as much history with them. Like, I think that's a legitimate coaching rationale to go with the guy who you trust a little bit more. But I do think that, you know, I kind of disagree with Joe in that I do think marginal improvements in a couple key areas definitely could have changed the outcome of that game. And we were like so close to actually escaping that game with a draw anyway that it's almost like telling like it took our worst performance of the cycle to get to lose it. You know what I mean?

If we had just had a little bit better execution in certain areas, it very well could have gone one goal better. And that's that's all we would have needed to almost be like cruising at this point through qualifying. So it's... Well, and maybe... Oh, sorry, I didn't mean a good job. Just how fine those margins can be.

And that's a good point, honestly. There is a chance that, well, I don't think the quality difference between a lot of the guys that were on the bench and we're in the starting lineup are game-changing, completely different, difference-making sorts of moves.

It's possible that if you have Lucidale-Lot in there instead of Leget, as an example, you could put anybody into that eight spot or really into any of these. spots. It is possible that that one little marginal improvement helps progress the ball, helps get it into the final third, into attackers, and maybe some better patterns develop from there. It's certainly not an impossibility. And so I am sort of sympathetic to Baraltar's admission of guilt here. Yeah, I think I'm choosing to believe that Luca Deloitte instead of

legit would have made a big difference, you know, and maybe that's wishful thinking, but you watch him for Heracles and he is, that is what he does. He receives the ball between the lines and he progresses it, and Legette couldn't do that for his life in that game. You know, he didn't even want to do it. So, and then, of course, I think the Acosta decision is a little tougher because he just happened to have a horrible, horrible game, which I don't think he had had up to that point. But it was a midfield that Berhalter highlighted as the problem in that game in the postgame press conference.

And if, you know, he's talking about like we should have played different players in that rotation that we did, he's probably talking about at least one of those midfield spots. And I don't think we can say that I don't agree with the sort of general consensus that Musa was poor in that game too. I think he had a couple four moments, but he was pretty good for the half that he played. So I'm, I don't know, I'm sort of given to the silver bullet explanation. That's like, that's a weakness of mine, but maybe LDLT could have made the difference in that game, you know? I think, I think I agree. with Greg's point that when I saw the lineup, I didn't really have too many issues with it when I first saw it.

And I agree with Adam, we talked about this, about Eunice Musa on our show, that like a lot of the kind of getting caught in possession, as I saw it, was him looking for a pass and expecting a teammate to be there. And then the one that stands out was George Bellow. He was clearly expecting an Antity Robinson-esque aggressive run forward. And so he turns to play wide, Musa, and George Bellow is maybe 30 yards behind where he's supposed to be. And so Moose has to hold and hold and hold. And then he loses the ball. I didn't think it was as much his fault as it was people being unfamiliar with the system. And that's where I go back to, I guess, Joe's point.

I'm bringing it all home. I don't think Burrhalter necessarily has any reason to lie. I also don't think he has a ton of reason to tell us the absolute truth because then he's throwing players under the bus and pointing out his weaknesses and his vulnerabilities that people can then highlight going forward. And I think we get an element of truth to this and an element of vagary because that's what a coach is going to do. And I think I would say that, like, reading between the lines and my interpretation of it is that he's saying that maybe some of the players that did come in weren't, not even up to the level, but just didn't have the familiarity with what they were being asked to do. Or just some of the chemistry you need to be able to have the communication in the game to say, hey, you need to be 10 yards further forward. Hey, you need to be five yards further back.

And I think some of that was missing. Some of that communication seemed to just be a big letdown on the evening. And I'm hoping that that gets rectified as we go forward. On that note, can I ask you guys something? Because, like, I really enjoy the content in these Bobby Warshaw interviews with Burrhalter. Do you guys think that it would be in bounds or pushing the line for Bobby to have followed that up with, which changes? Like, specifically, who are you talking about here? Do you think a coach would give that information up if asked directly?

No. I think about those things a lot. He's not going to get an answer, and he probably hurts his rapport with Burrhalter. It's a hard thing when you're doing that interview. you to push in a way that you're comfortable with, but not have it kind of ruin the chemistry of the moment. And I do think saying, which players, he knows he's not going to get an answer. And so you can ask so then people know that you ask. But if the answer is just going to be like, ah, you know, I don't really want to talk about that next question. The flow is kind of busted

there. So you have to choose carefully when you do want to press. And I think that's one where you know you're not going to get a lot of specifics. No busted flows, guys. No busted flows. I thought about it specifically with that question, and then later on when he's talking about his principles, which again, I really appreciate that, like, high-level discussion of the, but then I'm always like, ask him what the principal is. Like, just have him outline, let him go to town on,

I mean, coaches usually love talking about that stuff. Yeah, I feel like he would have been much more open to get into that than like, hey, I'm really mad at Sebastian for the way he played in Panama City. Should we go to question number two? Let's do it. I do think that's an important, let me just say that. I do think that's a really important one. the midfield who's going to play behind Adams McKinney and Musa is a really important one.

Not trying to be like sort of a tyrant here and just get the final word. But anyway, question number two. Tim and Baltimore. That's Baltimore with a D. When I watch Away Conca Calf games, they remind me more of college soccer than club soccer, not the case with home matches. Do you guys agree? If so, doesn't that mean the tactics should be completely different? Shouldn't the focus switch to direct play and set pieces?

Joe, why don't you start? I think I agree with Tim's general point here about the environment being different and almost the aesthetic just being very different. There's a much different look. You sound like you fully agree, Joe. No, I don't. I don't, I don't agree with the end point that he's asking about. But the initial plotline, I do.

There's a different aesthetic to many of those away games. Not all of them, right? Playing in Canada and whatever Toronto FC plays their home games is a much different experience in El Salvador. right but there is a different vibe in some of those away kunkakoff games right older venues the field isn't totally pristine things like that so that i'm on board with tim in baltimore i i'm not on board with the idea of completely changing and switching a tactical approach right you can tweak and you can emphasize certain principles in phases in a home game versus an away game depending on the environment

but completely overhauling the tactics in one game versus another game feels to me like it does more harm than good in a macro sense, right? What are you overhauling and what, what are you underwriting in a game like that to get that result, maybe to give yourself a slightly better chance to get that result if it even does that? What are you eliminating? What work are you undoing that you've already done? And so I think it might be a one step forward, two step backwards sort of situation.

So by that means, focus on set pieces. But use set pieces as maybe a differentiation in personnel selection and personnel choices. if you're trying to fill out the bottom end of a roster. Maybe don't completely abandon your principles of play and your tactical identity for an away game. So that's just my two cents. It's a nuanced thing, and there's probably more nuance than I got to in that response. But Tim, I think that's my take on that one.

Taylor. Yeah, I think I agree with Joe, and I agree with Joe agreeing in part with the question. Because I see where Tim is coming from. I think it is more physical, and I think the games do then end up being disjointed. And in my memory college games have a lot of stuff. stops and starts, and obviously there's more substitutions which breaks up the flow a little bit.

Again, I'm all about not breaking up flow, not breaking up rapport. I do think the U.S. could do a lot more with design set pieces. That's a thing that I feel like we always kind of end up saying about the United States national team. And we, in the last couple games, it seems like it's either been a corner that was cleared by the first defender or a corner that was overhit to the back post. And there isn't a ton of other stuff going on. There's a few free kicks where I think you can see little design pieces, but I do think that would be an area where the United States could get more out of what it's trying to do. But I would not say they should abandon the principles they've been working on of the style of play to then just get into a rugby match. I don't think that's going to

have the results we want either. I just want us to actually concentrate on set pieces in our home matches, too. Like, I want that to be a string. That would be fine as well. Yeah. That should be, that should be us. I guess I thought the 11, you know, the 11 against Panama, this is a game where it didn't look like we were going to score a goal in the run of play at all. The 11 had one guy, I think, who is a legitimate threat to score on set pieces. That was Walker Zimmerman. Maybe you could say Zardis is too, but there's nobody else on the team who is a real threat to score on a set piece. So maybe we should be putting a couple more people in the lineup in one of these away matches who can score on a corner kick.

Who's the player that you all think, like if the United States has a free kick, they need a goal there, 25, 30 yards out? Who is the player you most trust to not even score, but just put the shot on frame? Like taking a direct shot? Are you talking about serving a ball in? What are we after? Now, I'm talking about like scoring a goal. If you need a direct free kick, bend it like Beckham style, you need in the back of the net, you need that goal. Who would you most want taking that shot?

I feel like it's troubling to me that I don't really have. My answer might be Clint Dempsey, which is not a great answer. I was going to say Josie. He strolls off of the Paramount Plus set, walks onto the field. With those aviators on? I would believe he does it. I'm going to say Dest, who I don't believe has ever taken a free kick for the U.S. Men's National Team in an attacking area.

Anything outside of a quick restart, I certainly don't remember him doing that. But I would have said Kelan Acosta at some point, but that shine is sort of worn off for me over. time watching him take set pieces. I don't know that it's really any of the attacking players either, or at any of the, like, the frontline kind of guys. Dest, to me, feels like the guy who I'm most comfortable taking a pretty low percentage shot and just using his sauce to guide it into the back of the net. You do need an element of irrational confidence, don't you? So I feel like Desk probably has that in a way that other players don't. Joe, I think that's a good answer.

I have a song about this that I would like you guys to sing, and the answer is Boozio, you know? Yes. That's a good one. That's a good one, Bellas. O'Jon Luca. But yeah, I do think to, like, Joe's point earlier, we aspire to be a team that can go on the road in Conccaf and play good soccer. And, you know, one day, hopefully we can go to Panama City and play Los Canaleros off the pitch. But it's not, we're not there yet, I don't think. So I appreciate the question.

Number three, Ryan and O'Clair. Wisconsin. Analytics have gotten many on board with Matt Turner being the better goalkeeper due to his outstanding shot stopping. Why do we not see the analytic take on Kellyn Acosta more often? Over the past two seasons, he ranks 43rd out of 60 MLS defensive midfielders in American soccer analysis, catch-all G-plus metric. Is it simply because we so badly want a good athlete to back up Adams, even if the

player doing it may not consistently be up to the level? Gregory. Perfect, because I feel like Kevin Acosta is like. the sort of the poster boy for me for the reason that you have wide-ranging auditions. Kelman Acosta, I don't think is in this team. I don't think he won his spot because of his club play. And I don't think that was really ever the case. He was bright way back in his FC Dallas days.

And that got him a look. And then from that look, he sort of added on to his U.S. soccer teams like standing. And that's why it was so strange to me when he got dropped. early in 2019, the very first camp, because he never got a chance to, like, keep repeating his men's national team performances, which were pretty decent through the day Sarah-Kan era as well. And so it was also strange when he got back because it's not like he did anything at Colorado that necessitated getting back.

It was, you know, for all the redemption storylines around it, it's not like he, like, he, like, played his way off the field the way Christian Raldon sort of had in the last year. It was just like the same guy, but now, now he's suddenly like in our 23. So while I think Gplus is a great metric to use to try to find guys who are having good seasons, I still think it's something like that can get you your look. That doesn't necessarily lock you into a spot and it also doesn't lock you out of a

spot if you have a low scoring metric there. It's also, I think, important to note the differences in complexity between Gplus analyzing Matt Turner as a goalkeeper and analyzing an outfield player. right? I've used goals added, which is the full name for that metric. I've used that before in trying to figure out, you know, who are good players, who are guys that are impressing, what are they good at? And it is a great tool, but there is an undeniable difference in trying to evaluate a goalkeeper's shot stopping specifically, which is something that is a little bit simpler and can be done with expected goals and an understanding of where the ball is going to be hit on frame

to evaluate how good a goalkeeper is at actually stopping those shots and at what probability they're able to stop those shots. There's a difference between that in trying to evaluate a 360 degree outfield player, right? There's aspects of defending that we just can't measure right now with event data as opposed to tracking data, which is on the way. So it's not a like-for-like comparison, but Greg, I think the point that you're making is a good one. There is a reality in which Acosta's play for the national team and the fit in that system

in what has become, maybe not the initial system. But certainly Asper Alther shifted that setup in 2020 in that January camp for the February game against Costa Rica. That shifted and fits more with Acosta's skill set. And that for me is the area where actually Matt Turner and Acosta do have a similarity in this conversation because they both have a pretty definable skill. Matt Turner's skill is shot stopping, although he's dipping a bit in Major Lake Soccer right now. And Acosta's skill is mobility and being able to perform defensively according to the eye at least a similar-ish function to what Tyler Adams does. So It's not the same conversation.

And again, there's nuance that needs to be involved here when you're looking at the analytics for different position groups. But there is a similarity in that they both do something that is pretty clear to see that helps the team win the games in certain cases. So I am probably the least analytics person of the four of us talking. So big old great assault. All right. Well, then we can be joint worst. I'll take third. Whatever.

My larger point remains like when we talk about analytics, when we talk about using. data to figure things out. Like, it often, to me, feels like we're removing the actual gameplay from the conversation. And to me, like, I think what we said earlier, I think Greg said it. It's like, Joe, it's like a tool for finding underappreciated assets. But to me, it never is going to be a thing a coach looks at and says, like, oh, like his XG or his G plus isn't good enough. So no, he's out.

Like, for me, Matt Turner being good for the United States is what made me think Matt Turner could be good for the United States. the data will support that argument or it won't support that argument. But to me, that's not as important because fundamentally Greg Burhalter probably doesn't care about that. He cares about what he sees in training and how the players responding and how much they execute his game plan. I feel like sometimes what that data can tell us after the fact gets sort of morphed into, it needs to be a determinate factor in who we're calling and how we're looking at these players and how they're being evaluated. And we can want that or Ryan can want that or whomever else.

I think to then assume that coaches are valuing it the same way or utilizing it the same way sort of sets you up to be disappointed because I think a lot of the time it removes the human element and that's the thing that coaches most often care about the most. Well, Taylor, I guess I'm going to push back slightly on that. I do think Brother cares about analytics, number one. The amount of times he drops, I think he loves expected goals. I don't know how much he looks at other things. But the amount of times he drops that in these podcasts with Bobby,

It's so many, almost to the point where I think maybe he's overusing it in certain cases. But I do think coaches care about that. And I think their productive tool is to figuring out which players might deserve call-ups. But to the initial statement you made, I think it's important to use data. And the best people who do this, use data in conjunction with other things, right? It is a complicated situation to try and evaluate players and their performances. And so discarding data, discarding data is foolish, I believe, because you're taking out an avenue and a source of information to learn about a player. But you also should be looking

at things within the greater context of a team. You can't just look at a player and look at their numbers within one system and assume that their role is going to be a carbon copy for the national team. So I think what you're saying is in part true, but in a lot of cases the best uses of stats are in conjunction with other things. Yeah, yeah. And I think the people who do that best, you don't actually make a good use of data in that way. Yeah, yeah, I agree with that. What I mean is I think sometimes data gets prioritized by people who are talking about the team. And it's more like his XG isn't good. So why are we starting him here?

And right there, I kind of already disagree with the premise of the question. Because if you're looking at it more from A, we need a striker who can do X and Y and Z. And this player is only good at doing Q, then you've got, and not QAnon. That would be weird. That immediately you can kick them out. But if like if you're using it in that way to say they don't fit with what's being asked or what's required, that makes total sense to me. I just feel like sometimes maybe it's just because it gets boiled down so quickly and then people are having advanced analytics conversations

and that's what I come in. But to me, it feels like sometimes the human aspect, the player doing what they're being told to do or a player who plays for a struggling MLS team isn't going to have the talent that they would if they're playing for the U.S. national team. And so it's just different situations that I think I always go with what's the coach seeing in training and what does the system or the tactics require in that moment versus what does the data tell us and then let's build the system from there two things one i'll beep out the letter q from the podcast it's a family podcast and kind of you and then too yeah i i join you taylor in your uh pre-industrial era soccer analysis commitment because wait too you guys learned about the steam engine because

because because acosta like i mean gregg sort of alluded to this but acosta was was really good in both the Gold Cup final and in the Nations League final, he earned a lot of credit from those performances. And even though he wasn't very good at all against Panama, I think he gets another chance. Even though, to take the point of the question, he really is not a standout Major League Soccer player at this point. I mean, he played right wingback over the weekend.

So I get it a little bit. Yeah. First of all, I am very, very excited about the locomotive. Secondly, I think, and I'm not saying Ryan is doing this. I'm not saying anybody is doing this, really. It's just my feeling about data sometimes is that it's used to have hard and firm opinions about a player. And Kellan Acosta is an example. I feel like sometimes it becomes like, yeah, but his passing range is this, and therefore he is not good enough.

And I feel like soccer is just a constantly evolving thing, that if you're changing your style, you're changing your approach, you're putting somebody else around a player who they haven't played with previously, you're going to get a different result. And again, the data can help inform how that result might go or what would work better. But sometimes I feel like

we want things to be hard and firm and data will do that, but that's not going to be what soccer is. And so always I think I'm trying to set myself up to not rule people out, not be like, if this guy's in there, I'm going to be furious because then when you're watching a game

and that person's in there, you're automatically going to have a negative perception of the game and it's going to inform the way you see it. So I think I just, I don't, I resist it for that reason as well, that I don't like it, then informing me that this person is bad and they shouldn't be there, because then when they are, something seems wrong. Being careful about data is actually pretty

useful, I think, in all phases of life, not just soccer, especially when it comes with like a midfielder's. Right. Because it is, you know, it's data is collected in certain ways, and it's presented in certain ways, and it's, it is a useful tool, even in standard, understanding stuff like the economy, but it's not, you know, people often use it as a sledgehammer when it's, it's not. Yeah. It's not that. Should we go to the next question? Greg, anything more on Acosta?

Just if Acosta's going to play at this point, if Acosta's going to play his way out of the national team, it will be with the national team. I literally at this point do not care what he does for Colorado Rapids. Because of what he has shown us in a national team uniform, he sticks around until he stops showing us those things consistently in a national team uniform. Right.

Number four. Question number four, Bobby in Coldfoot, Alaska. And let me just say that is an awesome place to take a question from. And if you were from a place that sounds as cool as that, you're probably going to get your question read on the podcast. His question is, who is your sleeper pick to play well and impress us throughout the rest of World Cup qualifying? Taylor.

I don't know if he qualifies as a sleeper at this point. Can I say Brandon Aronson? Does that count since he's not an automatic starter if we have our full 11? Joe says no. Not a sleeper. I think just because if Raina and Pulisick are healthy, I don't think Brendan Aronson starts. And so if he's not a starter to me, I had him in that group. But fine, Joe, then I will go with an answer that I'm going to give later as well. I will say Joe Scali, who seems ready to go in terms of an option at writeback.

And we do have right back depth. But after Dest, it is sort of like a bunch of names that I'm mostly okay with. But I don't know if I love Shaq Moore more than I love Reggie Cannon. I think Reggie Cannon is still my second choice option. only just started getting games like this week for Bolivista. So I think I wouldn't mind seeing other options at right back just in case. And I think for what we've seen from Joe Scali so far this season, it seems like he is up to the challenge.

I like that answer. Greg? You happy, Joe? You happy that I didn't say Brother Dehranson? I am. This question seems designed to get me to say Dwayne Holmes, but I think instead I'm going to say, oh, man. It's tough man.

Yeah, Kenny Seff's been converted to a kind of a peer left back for anyone who's following his play in the Israeli league. It's just here. It's just here. This is a tough one because it seems like we've kind of put together most of our 11 at this point and even some of like the first backup. So it's hard to even call anyone a sleeper.

But I think I'm going to say Daryl Dike, who defies all the statistical conversations we were just having before. But because the field for, or I think backup strikers so wide open. I'm going to say that he could come in and make, he can kind of, you know, I think his stock fell after the gold cup. But I feel like the door is open for him to come in and be a difference maker in some of these rough and tumble away World Cup qualifiers.

And I'm really still curious to see how that would play out. That's a great shot. That's a really good answer. That's a really good answer. Because I was trying to think of number nine's who could come in. And like Pepe has done well, but Anzardes has the injury now. So I think anybody who comes in and scores a goal or two

is going to be vaulted into that conversation of starter or second choice or whatever it might be and D.K. was there. Fell off a bit and yeah, if he has a couple goals, I think he's right back in that conversation. I'm waiting for Joe to say it's going to be Miguel Berry then. No, no, I'm not quite that far along on Miguel Berry for the Columbus crew.

I do think, though, there's a number nine, another number nine option in Dallas that could be a fact of Hesu-Saint- It's a sleeper. I just enjoy watching Hey, this was Ferreira play. He's had some good moments with the national team before. There have certainly been setbacks at club level and international level. He's not been called in, in a while. The last time we saw him play for any U.S. team was in Olympic qualifying, and we know how that went. So Ferreira could be an option as a nine, especially now that the pool is a little bit shallow in that

particular position group. I'd like to see Ferreira and Pepe just for the memes coming in together to the national team and being the two nine options for the next window. I don't think that's going to happen. But it would be interesting. I have two other names. I don't want to be greedy, Bell, so sorry if I'm stealing one of yours. Jordan Morris, I think, is a slipper option. He's almost back from injury for the Seattle Sounders to the point where I don't think, and I'd be shocked if he was involved in November, but early 2022,

he could be an option there as a wide player that's tucking inside and making those vertical runs that Barthor and Joyce from the Wiener Group. And my other option, he's already involved with the national team, and I poo-pooed Taylor's Brendan Aronson shout, but Luca DeLotori. We mentioned him already a little bit. I posted that clip of him doing a marvelous thing in the Aredivizzi over the weekend, and a lot of other folks seem to enjoy that. I enjoyed it.

Taylor and I talked about De La Torre on TSS on Tuesday. There's a lot to like about his game, and he hasn't gotten. He's only had one appearance, I believe, so far, in World Cup qualifying. I think he could be in line for more as this progresses. Joe, you know that us being positive about him means he's not going to be in the next roster, right? Like, almost guaranteed. I forgot about that, Taylor. That's on me.

I'm sorry, everybody. Yeah. Luka was my pick too, so thanks for taking three names, Joe. Yeah, I think he's got the savvy and the physicality. He surprisingly enough has the physicality and definitely the technical ability to be useful in that number eight sort of attacking mid position. And it sounds like Berhalter wishes he maybe wishes he'd given him a chance in Panama. So I think he could be a key cog in the rotation and a good minute eater for Western or Eunice. Some of those I had

I had Taylor Oh good great No no no no I was just missing Some of it with Luca Feels like mindset And again Not to like

Continue beating the Dwayne Holmes drum But when I watch his clips Which I still do Every time he plays There is just a total Like mindset of like Game goes forward

I'm going forward with this We as a team are going to go forward And I'm going to take on Some of that responsibility And make it happen And that is Luca De La Torre Right That's exactly what he's going to bring

Is that mindset And maybe he won't be able to do it as cleanly in Conccaf settings as he can do in the white what seems like a wide open league in the Air Divisi. But bringing that mindset into the lineup for me still is going to go a long way. Bells, we used to talk about this a lot that the failure to qualify last cycle felt way more about like the inability to open up defenses on the road than any kind of like not enough work rate, not enough defense from our attacking players, which is kind of something that kind of gets trotted around with some of the choices we've been making lately. And it's still for me is like, we need

this attacking mindset. We need the guys who will unlock a committed defense in an away environment. And Luca DeLotori is going to have that mindset. And it's one of the reasons Weston is so crucial. I mean, it seems to be even more crucial to me now than I would have said like two months ago because he loves to push the game forward. And it can be messy. It can be sloppy, but he's going to go for it. And sometimes it's, sometimes it's beautiful, you know. I love Weston McKinney so much. My other one, I had this one on the next page of notes I have, so I apologize if you're not saying it earlier. And if you met Brendan Arrington, you're not going to like this one either.

But I would say Miles Robinson is also a player who I think could have massive importance for the national team for the rest of qualifying, because he is suddenly, like, in my mind, our most veteran centerback, because John Brooks is so erratic of late and seems like he's going to be on the move at some point, either in January or this summer, and seems to have lost a lot of confidence. And so looking at the other centerback options, it's Chris Richards or other young centerbacks or it's Tim Ream or Walker Zimmerman, who I'm just not, like, there's always going to be questions about them and concerns about them.

And if you do have Tim Ream, it's going to be Miles Robinson having to make up the ground and sort of do the covering job with no Aaron Long in there. I think he, again, becomes this sort of veteran presence. And if we need stability at the back to allow us to attack the way we want to, I think Miles Robinson, who is already very important, will just gain, importance as we go through qualifying.

Yeah, he has standout World Cup performance written all over him, in my opinion. Question number five, Matt Meyer in San Francisco. What's the highest level of soccer each of you have played personally? Ooh, this is a dangerous question. And how much of the tactical awareness that you have now did you have as a player? Do you want me to start? I'll start. Yeah.

I was a try hard outside midfielder for an NAA. college in the southeast that's now in division three my team was good but I was not I was but I was easy to get along with and pulled a solid enough grade point average that the coach liked me so I came on at the end of the half to run hard and U.S. fans would have absolutely hated me passionately I do think so to answer the second part of the question I did improve as a player in my 20s late 20s and 30s because of two things I got into carrying babies around the neighborhood and juggling when I lived in Minneapolis. So my first touch got better.

And I started watching a lot, lot, lot of soccer and understanding the game better, which improved how I played. So that's my answer. I was a disaster as a 21-year-old. I'm about the same, Bels. I had one year of D3, and then I was invited to, if I wanted to, come out for tryouts the next year. But the strong implication was you have a lot of work to do if you want to make the team.

largely because I was not in shape when I showed up and also because I had zero of the tactical, like, awareness that I have now, not trying to say I have a ton now, but I had even less than. I think I was much more of a do what the coach tells you to do, and then you're doing your job and not really thinking about why the coach is telling you to do that, was definitely more my style of play. All right, well, I kind of like made my bones because of some of the tactical knowledge that I was able to bring on at the field.

I was a goalkeeper, so that kind of tells you right away, I wasn't the best player growing up. In those days, that's what you did with your weaker players, when you put them, turn them into goalkeepers. But I was just a voice. So I was the vocal guy and it was just, I got to college at Iowa State, and it's just a club team. It's a bunch of guys who show up and train a couple times a week

and then go play all the Wisconsin state schools on the weekend. And it's mostly a traveling party. But like that vocal part can really be valuable. And so that's what I did. We had a good coach from Italy who drilled us on how to defend zonally and keep your lines tight in all those sort of cliches. And like, it just sunk in for me. And I was like, oh, I can organize this. And that's what I would do is just boss players around during the game.

Keep everything tight and get out of there with a 1-0 win. Apply everything that Greg just said about him to me, make me a centerback slash right back and leave me in high school. And that's my answer. I was a very bad soccer player Slash Am, a bad soccer player Taylor's seen me play, he should know this Although he's been like weirdly complimentary And I know, like I know it's not true

I think you Meg Sam Staisko like five times Let's make that a thing And make sure everybody messages Sam about that My highest level I've ever played at Was at a media all-star No media MLS Cup centric game In a couple years back And I did score penalty on Bobby Warshaw

Which is a proud moment Not that scoring a penalty is particularly challenging But I played high school as a high school was the highest level I played centerback right back. And I was the voice slash like tactical sort of mind in the back, which I feel like is not going to really surprise anyone that I didn't have a lot of skill on the ball. But I tried to organize people. I think I had a pretty solid tactical understanding then that and leadership ability was about all I brought to the table.

Our team was also pretty bad. So that helped me out as well. So my tactical acumen, I think, has gotten a little bit better since then as well. but that was about all I had then in high school. Nice. Do you feel like you got more mature in your later 20s and 30s? Because I am the same, that I didn't watch games for what players were doing and how that could translate into my game.

I was just sort of like, they exist in a different world that I can never fully comprehend. So it's meaningless to try to incorporate that. But the one that always stands out is I ended up playing forward for my adult team here in Richmond and watching Jamie Vardi and how it's, he starts wide and then makes those like kind of darting central runs and how he would keep gaps between him and the defenders.

Like it's really common sense, but watching him, I was like, oh, I should be doing that. And then I just started reading the centerbacks a lot more. But I didn't do that until later on. And I'm not sure if that was maturity or because I watched more or some combination of the two. But I had that same experience, which I think is kind of interesting. Yeah, some combination of the two. I cared more in my late 20s and early 30s and now. I care more now about the craft and the beauty.

of the game than I did, you know, as a college kid. I didn't have any sense of, you know, the mystery and beauty of the game, which now I have full comprehension of. Thank you very much. I mean, I think that that's part for the course. Yeah, I think it's probably pretty common. Like a lot of American kids. Yeah.

Yeah. I do, I have played against Tony Sane a couple times. He pops up in like pick up games in the Twin Cities. And I posted a picture once, I think, on Facebook, back when I used. Facebook, which I don't really anymore, but of he and I both going after the ball, and one of my buddies was like, you're not getting to that ball, bro. Did you? And it's true.

I did not. He was like, for him playing against me is like me playing against a baby, you know? It's, it's, uh, there's obviously levels to this. Question number six. We ready to move on? Okay. Jeremy and Missouri asks, if you could describe Burrhalter's tenure as head coach of the USMNT, what word would you use?

Complicated. Go ahead, Taylor. Flesh that out. Oh, I thought we were just saying words. Complicated. I think from everything from his original appointment to early signs of progress under him and kind of specific styles and patterns that we had not seen under the previous managers. But then the setbacks early against Mexico, recruiting successes, victories this summer,

inconsistent results, and I would say inconsistent. I struggled with how to explain this, but like psychological preparation is sort of where I've landed of late that players, I think, aren't as switched on as we need them to be for games, and maybe that's because they're not a switched on in practice because they think, yeah, we're just going to win these

it's Conccaf, no big deal, and that still is a thing that I think is hard. To what we were just talking about, Bells, it's hard to get that out of like a 21-year-old head of, no, you have to study and work hard when they've been able to just sort of like, you know, not necessarily breeze through their careers, but if they're having a ton of success at club level, the idea of, no, you've got to work at national team level as well, I think, can be hard to translate.

And so I think the inconsistency in the way the team is mentally prepared is part of the complicated tenure of understanding Greg Burrhalter. I was going to say the word I would use is burr halting. You like that, Taylor? You can't just make up your own word. Okay, halting. No, no, actually, you know what you can. And now I need you to actually give the full explanation for burr halting. Well, it's really just halting, but with a burr on the front.

But is it like burr like B-E-R or is it like B-E-R, yeah, B-E-R? Okay, okay. Just is a play on words, guys. Ha-ha. Two steps forward, one step back. One step forward, two steps back. All right. What will happen in Cincinnati?

Are you describing your term burr-halter? Yeah. What will happen in Cincinnati? I don't know. That will, and I think that will determine a lot of the narrative and the feelings we have about the campaign so far. All right. Joe, I'm going to go, oh, Bels, are you good? Are you good with your Berhol? I'm good. Joe, I'm going to go next because I think I'm probably going to be the most negative, which probably isn't surprising. But my word is going to be wasteful.

And it's just, it's tough for me, like, and it continues to be tough for me because, you know, we had the whole cycle. And this is what it feels like for me is we had this entire cycle for Burrhalter to set up like his system. If any, if we were ever going to succeed in like implementing and installing a system to play, it feels like it, would have been by committing to it early in the cycle and running. And we got him in early and it just feels like very little of those early days are visible in what we're doing now. I'm not saying his entire tenure has been negative. I think there are some really positive parts of what he's done just to throw one out there.

I still think our defensive solidity is like night and day from any of the last two cycles. And that's a huge plus for him. But just as far as like what he's done with the. full time that he's had to start doing what he wants to do, uh, just still feels like it was, uh, we, we kind of left a lot of opportunity on the table. Yeah, that's, that's entirely fair.

My word is slightly more positive than that, but there's notes, there's notes of what you're talking about, Greg. Mixed is my word. We're all roughly in a similar place, I think, with, with Greg as the slight outlier, maybe some excellent results, right? Some incredibly frustrating results, though, too, some high profile do nationals. brought in. Lots of youngsters brought along. Those are exciting things. There's also been some frustrating reliance on familiar players, which I can understand, and I sympathize with Burrhalter in that regard. There's been some tactical progress, but some of that progress has come along

painstakingly slowly. And Greg, I think that's sort of what you're getting at here. There have been changes and tweaks, and almost the team plays in a different way. They do play in a different way now than they did back in 2019. And that's a good thing, but it feels like it has not been linear or exponential progress. It has been up and down. The progress has certainly been mixed. And it's come along way too slowly given the timeline of Burhalter's appointment. So mixed is my word, Jeremy and Missouri.

Good. Number seven. Calvin in Norfolk, Virginia, which non-concafalf teams would you like to see a full-strength the USM&T play to determine where they are in progressing the triple G system, FIFA rankings, etc. Taylor, start us off. Norfolk, first of all. Second of all, my favorite, no, that's just because it's Virginia. My favorite remains Cosmo Kramer calling it like Norfolk in an episode of Seinfeld that always

stood out to me. To the actual question, I have two answers. The first would be Ghana. We played them in 2010, 2014. They're always very tricky because they're capable of playing in ways that I think Conca Calf opposition is not, because I think they tend to have more talent. But they're not Germany or France. They are still beatable and they still present opportunities for the United States to learn.

And the other would be Columbia, a more talented, technically skilled team that has caused problems for the United States at multiple levels, both youth and senior levels. But they are, in my mind, at least, reliant on key performers, Hamas Rodriguez being one of them. And so it's good practice for trying to limit the involvement. of star players, but I think they're also good enough, Columbia, that there wouldn't be a massive expectation we beat them, that it would be more of it. Like, how do we do against a team that could go far in the World Cup? And I think because expectations would be minimal or there would be more like enthusiasm for the game than we better win this game, I think it could be a good

test as well to see just what the United States can do with a little bit less pressure on them. Good shout. Greg, why don't you go? Well, Taylor just stole my Columbia pick. But I had two as well, ready to go. And the other reason I had Columbia is because I think they're right around the cutoff at the moment for South American qualifying. So it's like, would we be able to hang with the team right at the edge of qualifying out of South America? And I'd be really interested in seeing a home-and-home series. And my other one is going to be Japan. And it's kind of for a similar reason. Like, I want to see how we would do against one of the better teams in Asia and see if we are, just sort of get a sense of where we stand globally, not just we like to compare ourselves to the

European teams and what would we do if we were in UEFA. But I'd like to see the rest of the world, too. Where do we stand in those comparisons? I want to see the U.S. take on Sweden, not because of any World Cup qualifying ranking system. That's a good answer. But because of how they play under Jan Anderson, they play this painful, painfully deep 4-4-2 block. Not all the time, not in every minute of every game, but there's a lot of deep blocking. No, it's every minute.

And it's not, but it's close. It would not be a fun game. This would be a terrible game to watch. I am not excited about this possibility, but at the same time, I do think it would be interesting to see the U.S. play against a well-drilled athletic block in a way that I don't think Jamaica or Costa Rica really brought in the last window we're talking about, and we've talked about how there has been some slight progress when the best U.S. players are on the field, and that midfield is together on the field when the attackers are talented,

players up in the front line. There has been some progress there, but I'm not fully buying the fact that Jamaica or Costa Rica are real tests in that regard. They're perfectly fine tests for this situation. But if we're looking towards a potential World Cup, seeing the U.S. try to take on Sweden and seeing has that progress really been there, or is it more of a mirage? I'd be interested in that one. I'd also be interested in Denmark, just because I love to watch Denmark play under Kaspur Hulman. They play almost how Greg Borealthers tried to get the U.S. to play in possession. and I think that could be a more fun open game with a really quality opponent that's already qualified for the World Cup. That gives you an idea of how good Denmark is right now.

There haven't been many teams that have already qualified for 2022. So I just think that would be a much more fun game and a better taste in your mouth than the Sweden game probably. I was going to say any middle of the pack you weigh for our common ball team. So like Switzerland or Wales come to mind. But then I'm like, wait a second. We just played those teams. So they were actually good, I think a good opponent's to schedule. for friendlies and it's just we weren't quite ready for prime time when we played them.

I thought we looked okay against Switzerland, but which goes back to Greg's point about the a lot of the tenure being a little bit wasted. So I'd like to see us play a team like that again. I also had Columbia in my notes too for what it's worth. Columbia is everywhere. Beautiful country. Question number eight, which will be our last one for the first. first part of this two-part episode. Ryan in Overland Park, Kansas says soccer pundits and fans in general

have talked about this group of young players, Adams, Pulisick, McKenney, Musa, Raina, as the golden generation of the U.S. men's national team. While others have noted, this is the first of many waves of talent in the U.S. On what side of the spectrum do you fall? He goes on to argue that maybe falls on the spectrum of it's a golden generation and there's not another wave of talent coming. So Joe, why don't you start us? I'm firmly on the side of the number line or the spectrum that says this is the first wave. And some waves are going to be bigger and better than others, right? It's sort of how the tide works, I guess. I don't know. But there's real talent in American soccer, right? We're seeing some of that talent on the field with the U.S. men's national team right now,

and that's the golden generation of sorts that Ryan's talking about. But there are still talented players coming up through the ranks in the U.S. that I firmly believe, will be players for the U.S. National team in the future. Some examples, I guess all these examples really are centered around one academy, and that's the Barsa Residency Academy here in Arizona. I'm more familiar with it because it's closer to me. I've been out there to watch some games.

Caden Clark, really talented player, not getting time with the Red Bulls right now, but he's on his way to RB Leipzig over the winter break in the Bundesliga. He'll be there for the second half of the Bundesliga season. I think he has the tools to be a really good eight in a four-three, one of the dual eights in a four-three, or to be a narrow winger in the way that Burralter tends to use those players positionally. Other talent at that club, though, at that academy, Brooklyn Raines, who recently just moved from the Barso Residency Academy to El Paso Locomotive in USL,

Moises Arsenaaga, who's just on the U-17 camp roster for the latest U-S. U-S. soccer is putting together. They're extremely talented players. Will they become future U.S. men's national team players? I don't know, right? We don't know these things. But that's just one academy. There's so many other academies doing really good work in U.S. and American soccer right now.

I would be very surprised if this was a one-off situation and not a repeatable crop of talent coming up to the ranks. I'm mostly in the same boat. It would just seem so, again, statistically unlikely that we would just somehow stumble onto this outrageous level of talent historically for this program. and to then just sort of go back to a like a nothing situation. And the other thing that I keep thinking about is because this generation is actually so young, we still haven't even seen like the late bloomers come out yet. They're going to be guys who we've either written off or guys that just never have made quite the name for themselves as sort of the meteoric rise guys that are probably going to have an impact in some capacity.

And we don't even know who those guys are yet, which again, just for me is like another exciting avenue of talent that could be coming through. Taylor. Yeah, I agree with Greg on that one, because I've never really bought into the golden generation idea. I feel like that's an easier thing for people to talk about after the fact, or oftentimes when it's the last chance for this golden generation. And you've got more like 30-year-olds, 32-year-olds,

who are trying to win one more thing or win finally and then they can call it quits on their national team career. The guys we're talking about in this conversation or what, like 18, 19, 20, 21? So is a 16-year-old of a different generation to an 18-year-old? Like, I think they're so young that it's hard for me to say because we would have to look at like 13-year-olds and 12-year-olds to say who's coming through the ranks

that isn't of that same generation in my mind. So I think, I don't even think it's going to be waves. I think it's just going to be a pool that continues to expand. I mean, like, would you put Justin Shea in the already a proven entity conversation or would you put him in the next generation conversation? I think it's just going to keep being a broader and broader base of talent, and then within that broad base, you will get distinctions that maybe become golden generations or maybe are just of the same generation and not quite as good, and it will kind of evolve from there. That's where I stand on that one. I hope that makes, at least some semblance of it. Totally makes sense. I hadn't quite thought of it that way. And it makes me wonder how much incumbency, how big of a role incumbent is going to play as we go towards the 2026 World Cup. Because almost everybody on this, team is under 23, you know? So like how you're going to either either the competition is going to be opened completely up or, you know, somebody who did, has been with the national team for a while

is going to have a huge advantage over newcomers. But yeah, it's difficult to separate the generations out at this point. Shea, Shea is the same age as peppy, you know, and they're in different, they're in different situations with regard to the national team. So I'm not, I'm a, I'm I'm in team expanding pool, just like you too. You're welcome in. The water's fine. Because, yeah, like look at the problems that the U.S. women's national team has run into,

and that's where you have these established veterans who have obviously won quite a bit and been together for a long time, and now you've got players playing into their mid-to-late 30s, and you've got youngsters who have just sort of been waiting and waiting and waiting, and those youngsters are now 28, but they're the next generation to step in, or 26 or whatever it might be,

and then you've got even younger players below that, that. I think, to your point, Bell, is like, that longevity can become an issue in and of itself, but I guess we have to get there first before that becomes an issue. But I think it's just going to be the kind of broadening of talent, and then we'll see who sticks around and who gets considered surplus of requirements, basically. Got to qualify for the 2022 World Cup first. But it will be fun going into the 2026 World Cup talking about all the 25-year-olds who are washed. Oh, man. Anthony Robinson's passed it, 27 years. hold, get him out of there.

Yeah. All right. Yeah, remember the prime was like 26 to 28 is what we all thought? And now it's evidently, I don't know, nine years old is when you're like rounding into your prime in professional soccer? Yeah, I'm going to be like retired from the professional workforce by the time Pulisic retires from soccer. Not really, guys.

Oh, wow. Thanks. Thanks everybody for listening. I think that does it for us. We'll see you.