- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This board is way too negative re: Berhalter
Posted on 11/29/22 at 7:38 pm to Billy Mays
Posted on 11/29/22 at 7:38 pm to Billy Mays
quote:
We played conservative in the last 30 mins because we were protecting a lead, and it worked.
We got lucky. For Christ sake the ball got behind our keeper in that span. I said it earlier and I’ll say it again we won in spite of our coach not bc of him.
If you know soccer you know how to close out a game you’ve been in control of….possession, recycle, possession.
He should have played like the end of the England game except 75% of the time we went to take a shot (vs England) we recycle possession.
You park the bus like that in games you steal a goal in and you aren't supposed to be winning. We literally gave up control of the game when we should have put our foot on their throats.
Now instead of spending the last 20 minutes passing them to death. We ran our legs out from under an already tired team.
This post was edited on 11/29/22 at 7:39 pm
2
Posted on 11/29/22 at 7:39 pm to Earnest_P
They took their foot off of the gas in the second half because they were getting dominated and outcoached. Gregg's early 4-4-2 confused England and completely killed what they wanted to do and their manager lacked the chops to figure out how to counter it mid game. That's not us getting lucky, that's us forcing our opponent out of their comfort zone.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 7:41 pm to hendersonshands
Our talent overcame his coaching. Bigger question, does this get him extended thru 2026? Thats my fear. Every poster on this site saw the Wales goal coming long before it did, due to coaching malpractice. Today we somehow survived the same scenario.
All credit goes to players imo.
All credit goes to players imo.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 7:43 pm to hendersonshands
The 4-4-2 shape he used for the England game was very tactically astute and our midfield rotation has been remarkably well-organized. You see lots of good movement in the half-spaces, and unlike some of the friendlies before the game, the players seem like they know their responsibilities with and without the ball.
While we have very good players in midfield, you still need direction from the manager in terms of organization, and that's what we've seen. Rarely do our midfielders ever get crowded together, nor do you see wide players leaving our wingbacks in a 2 v 1 situation. It's very hard to have a well-organized midfield and defense at international tournaments.
The one major problem I see is that the US isn't breaking enough at pace. We saw quite a few times that if the US can get vertical very quickly, then the midfielders can play a good pass that can unlock the defense. A few times our midfield had worked an opportunity where they could play a pass facing the game with the ball at their feet. Once was the McKennie pass to Dest, which was an all-time boner ball. Another was the Weah offside goal with the pass from McKennie and a third was that lovely Adams through ball to Sargent. The final one I can remember is a great example of the midfield rotation, as McKennie positioned himself wide of the right-back with Aaronson moving up the left-hand channel, with Robinson wide of both, which meant that the US had a 3 v 2 opportunity there, which led to Sargent's left-footed chance. ETA: I forgot the point of this paragraph in the middle of it, but the Aaronson example was against the low-block, but it is an example that shows that the organization is meaningful offensively, as one of the points of working the ball side-to-side is to allow for numerical superiority situations to develop on either wing. Which is something we did really well in the England game too, specifically on the right side.
The major issue with the system at the moment is that it is designed to take advantage of a counter-attacking game, but the US seems to be somewhat hesitant to fully commit when on the break. Sometimes they should just shoot but play one more pass for some reason. That's a key difference between France in 2018 and the US now, is that France could turn the attacking play on when they needed to. While we don't have that individual talent, we also seem way more hesitant around goal.
While we have very good players in midfield, you still need direction from the manager in terms of organization, and that's what we've seen. Rarely do our midfielders ever get crowded together, nor do you see wide players leaving our wingbacks in a 2 v 1 situation. It's very hard to have a well-organized midfield and defense at international tournaments.
The one major problem I see is that the US isn't breaking enough at pace. We saw quite a few times that if the US can get vertical very quickly, then the midfielders can play a good pass that can unlock the defense. A few times our midfield had worked an opportunity where they could play a pass facing the game with the ball at their feet. Once was the McKennie pass to Dest, which was an all-time boner ball. Another was the Weah offside goal with the pass from McKennie and a third was that lovely Adams through ball to Sargent. The final one I can remember is a great example of the midfield rotation, as McKennie positioned himself wide of the right-back with Aaronson moving up the left-hand channel, with Robinson wide of both, which meant that the US had a 3 v 2 opportunity there, which led to Sargent's left-footed chance. ETA: I forgot the point of this paragraph in the middle of it, but the Aaronson example was against the low-block, but it is an example that shows that the organization is meaningful offensively, as one of the points of working the ball side-to-side is to allow for numerical superiority situations to develop on either wing. Which is something we did really well in the England game too, specifically on the right side.
The major issue with the system at the moment is that it is designed to take advantage of a counter-attacking game, but the US seems to be somewhat hesitant to fully commit when on the break. Sometimes they should just shoot but play one more pass for some reason. That's a key difference between France in 2018 and the US now, is that France could turn the attacking play on when they needed to. While we don't have that individual talent, we also seem way more hesitant around goal.
This post was edited on 11/29/22 at 7:53 pm
Posted on 11/29/22 at 7:45 pm to hendersonshands
quote:
hey took their foot off of the gas in the second half because they were getting dominated and outcoached. Gregg's early 4-4-2 confused England and completely killed what they wanted to do and their manager lacked the chops to figure out how to counter it mid game. That's not us getting lucky, that's us forcing our opponent out of their comfort zone.
Granted, but they wouldn't have settled for that if they needed 3 points, they would have kept going for it. Which is why I'm saying it's lucky that they didn't need 3 points. Put it differently. If we played this England team 10 times in knockout round games, how many times do you think we would hold them scoreless?
I'm not taking credit from Gregg for having our midfield set up to dominate that game. That was awesome. The whole game was awesome until the 70 minute mark when he quit trying to win. I'm taking credit from him because it was a winnable game against a favorite in the tournament that he was content to draw. And he doubled down on that overly conservative style in this game today. I don't even think you disagree with that.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 7:47 pm to patchesohoulihan_007
Most of you have never had to actually make decisions on a soccer field outside of FIFA and it shows.
We got negative a little too early by bringing on Acosta, but we were also completely worn out. Musah, Adams, Robinson, and Dest have covered a ton of ground in a week. He tried to bring in Wright, presumably to hold up the ball and allow for possession but he lost the ball nearly every time - which goes back to a negative I gave of him in an earlier post. Wright is useless. Aaronson also constantly lost the ball.
So I'm not sure how you want to play possession with two exhausted midfielders, two dead tired fullbacks, a striker incapable of doing anything and a winger who kept losing the ball.
We got negative a little too early by bringing on Acosta, but we were also completely worn out. Musah, Adams, Robinson, and Dest have covered a ton of ground in a week. He tried to bring in Wright, presumably to hold up the ball and allow for possession but he lost the ball nearly every time - which goes back to a negative I gave of him in an earlier post. Wright is useless. Aaronson also constantly lost the ball.
So I'm not sure how you want to play possession with two exhausted midfielders, two dead tired fullbacks, a striker incapable of doing anything and a winger who kept losing the ball.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 7:48 pm to Earnest_P
quote:
They weren't at the start, but they absolutely took their foot off the gas in a way they wouldn't have if they needed a win. It's not bullshite just because it counters your thesis.
They brought on Henderson and took off their teenage phenom, who also was the only player who even remotely presented any danger to the US at all during that game.
Southgate was trying to shut down the game rather than win it, but he's among the worst tacticians at this WC. He rarely can adjust to anything other than England being on the front foot.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 7:49 pm to OU Guy
quote:
Our talent overcame his coaching.
This is so dumb
How do you know? You're acting like we had players going on 50 yard solo runs and scoring bangers. Our goal today was beautiful buildup play by the team. If that's any other team, you at least give the manager a little credit for working on buildup play.Posted on 11/29/22 at 7:53 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
The 4-4-2 shape he used for the England game was very tactically astute and our midfield rotation has been remarkably well-organized. You see lots of good movement in the half-spaces, and unlike some of the friendlies before the game, the players seem like they know their responsibilities with and without the ball.
While we have very good players in midfield, you still need direction from the manager in terms of organization, and that's what we've seen. Rarely do our midfielders ever get crowded together, nor do you see wide players leaving our wingbacks in a 2 v 1 situation. It's very hard to have a well-organized midfield and defense at international tournaments.
The one major problem I see is that the US isn't breaking enough at pace. We saw quite a few times that if the US can get vertical very quickly, then the midfielders can play a good pass that can unlock the defense. A few times our midfield had worked an opportunity where they could play a pass facing the game with the ball at their feet. Once was the McKennie pass to Dest, which was an all-time boner ball. Another was the Weah offside goal with the pass from McKennie and a third was that lovely Adams through ball to Sargent. The final one I can remember is a great example of the midfield rotation, as McKennie positioned himself wide of the right-back with Aaronson moving up the left-hand channel, with Robinson wide of both, which meant that the US had a 3 v 2 opportunity there, which led to Sargent's left-footed chance.
This dude is smart ^. People think it's all on the players and that's hilarious. We have a 23 yr old, 24 yr old, and a dude who just turned 20 playing a near perfect midfield in the World Cup and people think that just happens.
quote:
The major issue with the system at the moment is that it is designed to take advantage of a counter-attacking game, but the US seems to be somewhat hesitant to fully commit when on the break. Sometimes they should just shoot but play one more pass for some reason. That's a key difference between France in 2018 and the US now, is that France could turn the attacking play on when they needed to. While we don't have that individual talent, we also seem way more hesitant around goal.
Yeah, that's the big issue. I was yelling at my television today for our players to take defenders on. We do well to get Weah and Pulisic 1v1 on the wings, but more than half the time, we turn around. It's absolutely the weak spot on this team. Being decisive
Posted on 11/29/22 at 7:55 pm to Earnest_P
quote:
Granted, but they wouldn't have settled for that if they needed 3 points, they would have kept going for it. Which is why I'm saying it's lucky that they didn't need 3 points. Put it differently. If we played this England team 10 times in knockout round games, how many times do you think we would hold them scoreless?
Gareth Southgate being incapable of making prudent attacking moves is not my fault, nor is it Gregg's. The U.S. forced him to make a move and all he knows is "shut it down." Once again, that's great coaching from our side.
We saw the same deficiencies be exploited by Italy in the second half of the European Championship finals.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 7:59 pm to hendersonshands
It will be interesting to see how things change in the knockout rounds. I am critical of the bus-parking in the group stage, but it’s at least a defensible strategy that sometimes (like today) works out. He knows we need goals going forward, so we should see more taking players on and less playing the safe pass (and more attacking subs when it’s 0-0).
Posted on 11/29/22 at 8:00 pm to patchesohoulihan_007
quote:
We got lucky
Kind of - Iran’s xGF was only like .59 in the second half - which was 55 mins. And considering our injury and sub situation that’s not bad. Shaq Moore was probably responsible for half of that .59 expected goals
All of best attacking players were off the pitch at the end of the game, including our best player. Biggest criticism is we didn’t bring in Reyna instead of Haji.
This post was edited on 11/29/22 at 8:03 pm
Posted on 11/29/22 at 8:00 pm to hendersonshands
quote:
Gareth Southgate being incapable of making prudent attacking moves is not my fault, nor is it Gregg's. The U.S. forced him to make a move and all he knows is "shut it down." Once again, that's great coaching from our side.
Would they have shut it down if they needed 3 points? Yes or No.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 8:01 pm to Earnest_P
Would he have subbed on Henderson knowing he needed a goal? Yeah, maybe. I’ve seen enough of him to know he’s not the brightest bulb. He also kept Kane on and brought on Grealish so it’s not like he went full bunker.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 8:05 pm to Billy Mays
quote:
All of best attacking players were off the pitch at the end of the game, including our best player. Biggest criticism is we didn’t bring in Reyna instead of Haji.
Right, so Haji was probably supposed to be good at holding up the ball, winning headers, all the dirty work a big center forward does, but he was fricking terrible at all of it. If that's going to be the case, yeah just bring on Reyna to get fouled and kill off the game that way.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 8:14 pm to hendersonshands
He did a very good job against England and in the first half against Wales. The second half I can even say wasn’t his fault against the Welsh.
The team was fantastic in the first half here, and I would agree into the 60s.
He deserves all of this board’s criticism for the final 30 minutes.
He subbed off a very good right back for a terrible one. He brought in a 3rd central defender and took off a primary attacker who takes defenders head-on.
And he took off Sargent for a supposedly similar player who was atrocious. This means he doesn’t know his own players, at least the more obscure ones.
Acosta for McKennie I can support, especially since Weston isn’t 100 percent. Aaronson for Pulisic is obvious but correct, so props to him for not overthinking it .
The team was fantastic in the first half here, and I would agree into the 60s.
He deserves all of this board’s criticism for the final 30 minutes.
He subbed off a very good right back for a terrible one. He brought in a 3rd central defender and took off a primary attacker who takes defenders head-on.
And he took off Sargent for a supposedly similar player who was atrocious. This means he doesn’t know his own players, at least the more obscure ones.
Acosta for McKennie I can support, especially since Weston isn’t 100 percent. Aaronson for Pulisic is obvious but correct, so props to him for not overthinking it .
Posted on 11/29/22 at 8:18 pm to hendersonshands
Very solid post. I give him a solid B. I give credit to Berhalter for simplifying tactics, playing people where they should be and keeping organized.
That may sound somewhat elementary but as noted we have one of the youngest teams in the tournament with very little time playing together.
To me one of the biggest deficiencies has been a complete ineptitude at set pieces. If we find any success on set pieces to go with our tactical discipline we’ll be a tough out going forward.
That may sound somewhat elementary but as noted we have one of the youngest teams in the tournament with very little time playing together.
To me one of the biggest deficiencies has been a complete ineptitude at set pieces. If we find any success on set pieces to go with our tactical discipline we’ll be a tough out going forward.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 8:18 pm to hendersonshands
I mostly hate his politics
Posted on 11/29/22 at 8:20 pm to hendersonshands
quote:
People think it's all on the players and that's hilarious. We have a 23 yr old, 24 yr old, and a dude who just turned 20 playing a near perfect midfield in the World Cup and people think that just happens.
What’s annoying about that logic is that none of this is intuitive. If you put these kids naturally on the field in a pick up game, they wouldn’t magically know where to go with and without the ball. The fact that people think that Berhalter isn’t doing anything should be a testament to the coaching job in terms of setting the team up initially. He’s basically nailed that in each of our group games. We obviously notice when his subs don’t work, partly because so many other aspects of the team do work.
I am worried about some of the fitness aspects, because we are putting an awful lot of miles on our midfield, and we don’t have any depth. We definitely didn’t need to bring 4 right-backs this tournament.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 8:21 pm to SirWinston
I mostly hate you, mate
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News