sycasey said:

---

sluggo said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

As I continue my learning journey, let me ask the following:

Obviously, England was bunkering (turtleing, whatever) and obviously, it didn't work.

What specifically should they have been doing so that Argentina wasn't able to camp on their side of the field taking shots and initiating crosses until two balls finally went into the net?

Seems quite analogous to sticking with a prevent defense and an ultra-conservative offense in American football, in which case I could answer this myself... but help me out with soccer.

---

Unfortunately Cal fans who lived through Wilcox should be all too familiar with that.

---

I was going to talk about Wilcox, but I did not want to alienate anyone, but since you did first, I think England lost in a very Wilcoxian way. Losing is fine but losing passively feels ten times worse.

---

It was basically us taking a lead because of Mendoza's passing and then taking the ball out of his hands for most of the 4th quarter while the opponent grinds us down. So like the Miami game or the Pitt game or . . . sigh.

---

The "..." says it all. Too many to count. I know Tosh will lose sometimes, that is part of competition, but it will be because Cal was beaten, not because Cal laid down. I used to talk about how Wilcox managed losses. Like we were going to lose without taking chances, but we might lose worse if we took those chances, so we didn't. F*** that.

sluggo said:

---

Big C said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Rebecca just said:

From the time Gordon scored to the second Argentina goal, England had only 12% possession.

Tuchel is an idiot.
It was a German subterfuge!

---

As I continue my learning journey, let me ask the following:

Obviously, England was bunkering (turtleing, whatever) and obviously, it didn't work.

What specifically should they have been doing so that Argentina wasn't able to camp on their side of the field taking shots and initiating crosses until two balls finally went into the net?

Seems quite analogous to sticking with a prevent defense and an ultra-conservative offense in American football, in which case I could answer this myself... but help me out with soccer.

---

I was going to write something about the question you asked. But now I will just reply to you.

I think you understand. England went into the soccer equivalent of a prevent defense and an all running up the middle offense very early, that is, with like 40 minutes left in the game (given extra time). I just read Argentina had 88% possession (!!!) between England's goal and their game winner. Over 2/3 possession is dominant, 88% is a ridiculous number. More or less England never had the ball so Argentina was getting about one good chance per minute. They put in two but it could easily have been four (assuming strategies did not change, which they would have).

There are two obvious ways of opposing unrelenting pressure: First, hold the ball. Second, apply pressure to the opposing goal. But Tuchel's substitutions went against those two principles. At minute 72 they took out winger Gordon and brought on defender Konsa. Gordon holds the ball well and plays up top, while Konsa is a pure defender. So let's say they went from three attackers (two wingers and striker Kane) to two. Then at 82 minutes they doubled down on the defeatist strategy by taking out midfielder (and great two way player) Rice and replacing him with defender O'Reilly (now they had six defenders) and taking out two way defender James and replacing him with pure defender (unless on headers) Burn. This made it almost impossible to hold the ball and made them goal impotent. (At 96 minutes they brought in two attackers, but it was way, way too late).

What could they have done? First, I think they should have taken out great but ultra-slow Harry Kane and brought in fast Rashford or Madueke. They would not get more possession but at least they would be goal dangerous if long balls were played. Second, when they replaced all field players like Gordon and Rice and James they could have brought in more possession oriented players like Eze and Saka. They needed more possession to run down the clock and to perhaps counter attack.

Meanwhile, Argentina took off three of their four defenders and their defensive oriented center midfielder (plus winger Simeone) and brought in three attackers, one more offensive center back, and one defender who I think was more attack minded. I would have to see the tape but I think they were playing with basically two defenders until they got their goals. Which was possible because England had no countering possibilities.

If I am going down, I want to do down swinging, not like a, umm, (fill in the blank with a word for a passive person, a few come to mind, but I don't want to use them).

---

Tuchel's approach was especially jarring given Argentina's established tournament pattern of furious late comebacks against CV, Egypt and Switzerland!! Even the goals against England looked similar to those in their previous comebacks.

Cal88 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Big C said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Rebecca just said:

From the time Gordon scored to the second Argentina goal, England had only 12% possession.

Tuchel is an idiot.
It was a German subterfuge!

---

As I continue my learning journey, let me ask the following:

Obviously, England was bunkering (turtleing, whatever) and obviously, it didn't work.

What specifically should they have been doing so that Argentina wasn't able to camp on their side of the field taking shots and initiating crosses until two balls finally went into the net?

Seems quite analogous to sticking with a prevent defense and an ultra-conservative offense in American football, in which case I could answer this myself... but help me out with soccer.

---

I was going to write something about the question you asked. But now I will just reply to you.

I think you understand. England went into the soccer equivalent of a prevent defense and an all running up the middle offense very early, that is, with like 40 minutes left in the game (given extra time). I just read Argentina had 88% possession (!!!) between England's goal and their game winner. Over 2/3 possession is dominant, 88% is a ridiculous number. More or less England never had the ball so Argentina was getting about one good chance per minute. They put in two but it could easily have been four (assuming strategies did not change, which they would have).

There are two obvious ways of opposing unrelenting pressure: First, hold the ball. Second, apply pressure to the opposing goal. But Tuchel's substitutions went against those two principles. At minute 72 they took out winger Gordon and brought on defender Konsa. Gordon holds the ball well and plays up top, while Konsa is a pure defender. So let's say they went from three attackers (two wingers and striker Kane) to two. Then at 82 minutes they doubled down on the defeatist strategy by taking out midfielder (and great two way player) Rice and replacing him with defender O'Reilly (now they had six defenders) and taking out two way defender James and replacing him with pure defender (unless on headers) Burn. This made it almost impossible to hold the ball and made them goal impotent. (At 96 minutes they brought in two attackers, but it was way, way too late).

What could they have done? First, I think they should have taken out great but ultra-slow Harry Kane and brought in fast Rashford or Madueke. They would not get more possession but at least they would be goal dangerous if long balls were played. Second, when they replaced all field players like Gordon and Rice and James they could have brought in more possession oriented players like Eze and Saka. They needed more possession to run down the clock and to perhaps counter attack.

Meanwhile, Argentina took off three of their four defenders and their defensive oriented center midfielder (plus winger Simeone) and brought in three attackers, one more offensive center back, and one defender who I think was more attack minded. I would have to see the tape but I think they were playing with basically two defenders until they got their goals. Which was possible because England had no countering possibilities.

If I am going down, I want to do down swinging, not like a, umm, (fill in the blank with a word for a passive person, a few come to mind, but I don't want to use them).

---

Tuchel's approach was especially jarring given Argentina's established tournament pattern of furious late comebacks against CV, Egypt and Switzerland!!

---

Good point! When Argentina senses blood they kill. Bunkering worked against Mexico, just barely. That made sense down a player and at altitude. It made no sense here. England has a great bench, it was why I thought they would win. They could have gone more defensive while maintaining some possession and goal danger.

Spain never, ever plays like this. Even down a player. Argentina will have to earn it.

Cal88 will appreciate the love for Arsenal bunkering

I agree with Landon on everything except Tuchel did not IMMEDIATELY make a bunch of defensive subs. He waited far too long to sub.

concordtom said:

---

Cal88 will appreciate the love for Arsenal bunkering

---

That is not what he is saying. He is complaining that Tuchel took out Rice and did not play Madueke and Saka and Eze. And he is right, not just because Arsenal is my #1 team.

It is hard for a coach to lose in a way where everyone knows what you did wrong. And that the approach was cowardly. While he has a contract I don't see him back. It would not be good for his emotional health.

Tuchel carried a lot of praise for winning Champions League (with Pulisic at Chelsea, as previously stated), but he will NEVER live this down.

This one, calling for Tuchel's immediate firing.

Hahahaha!!!!!

sluggo said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Cal88 will appreciate the love for Arsenal bunkering

---

That is not what he is saying. He is complaining that Tuchel took out Rice and did not play Madueke and Saka and Eze. And he is right, not just because Arsenal is my #1 team.

---

Ah, missed who the Arsenal players are/were.

Best possible final. Defending world champs, Messi. Europe vs South America

sluggo said:

---

It is hard for a coach to lose in a way where everyone knows what you did wrong. And that the approach was cowardly. While he has a contract I don't see him back. It would not be good for his emotional health.

---

Geez,
He might have to move out of country.
The rain is coming as a storm

His explanations

Anarchistbear said:

---

Best possible final. Defending world champs, Messi. Europe vs South America

---

True, except I've been praying for Argentina to lose since the knockouts began.

No real reason, maybe just tired of a Messi Messi Messi, and all those passionate Argentina stripes jerseys.
He's been proving me wrong about him.
And I was actually happy for the thrill those jerseys experienced today!

But maybe that's just because I was at The Play.

concordtom said:

---

Cal88 will appreciate the love for Arsenal bunkering

---

He doesn't talk about Arsenal, but he's right about England having had a good tournament overall, they looked like a legit semifinalists and showed well. I guess the manner in which they lost was fairly demoralizing. They should have the same attitude as a top 10 NCAA team reaching the Final Four. They would have gotten beat in the final anyway, Spanish Armada in reverse.

Cal88 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Cal88 will appreciate the love for Arsenal bunkering

---

He doesn't talk about Arsenal, but he's right about England having had a good tournament overall, they looked like a legit semifinalists and showed well. I guess the manner in which they lost was fairly demoralizing. They should have the same attitude as a top 10 NCAA team reaching the Final Four. They would have gotten beat in the final anyway, Spanish Armada in reverse.

---

I would bet my life on him saying there were no Arsenal players on the pitch when Argentina scored, which is meaningful as he identifies himself early and often as an Arsenal fan.

She's pretty awesome!!!

Gee, what a surprise. Chelsea fans don't much care for Enzo Fernandez right now.

https://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/breaking-news/article/world-cup-chelsea-deletes-social-media-post-celebrating-enzo-fernandezs-goal-vs-england-in-argentinas-semifinal-win-051538250.html

My thoughts yesterday were that the club should get rid of him. I certainly didn't expect some daft publicity staffer to make celebratory posts.
Clueless.

The best current US attacker who did not make the USMNT roster (Banks is the best defender, I don't know who the best keeper is but some people think it is Kochen). He could be one of those dominant wingers that the best teams have but we don't have yet. Fast, dribbly, great stamina, shoots with both feet, really everything. Need to see against better competition. His team is saying they won't sell him. I hope that is just to push the price up. He needs to go to Europe immediately. I think he is worth about 20 million, but that depends on how long his contract stretches. MLS tries to tie up young players too long, but he is someone who was not such a star when he was younger, so maybe he could not resist. I can explain international soccer contracts if anyone is interested. It is sort of the same but sort of different than American sports.

Transfermarket, the website for valuing players, has him for much less. I think they need an update.

Zavier Gozo’s goal for RSL last night in a 4-1 friendly win over Burnley (who are having a nightmare preseason tour in the USA)

Gozo could be with the #USMNT soon, but I think it would be good for him to lead the Olympic team in 2028 pic.twitter.com/XxVaGIKg2E

— Brian Sciaretta (@BrianSciaretta) July 16, 2026

https://www.transfermarkt.us/zavier-gozo/profil/spieler/1007383

concordtom said:

---

sluggo said:

---

If Poch leaves, which I hope he doesn't, here is a list of candidates to replace him. I just hope it is not an American MLS lifer nobody, we should have moved past that. Only Matarazzo should be considered among Americans with his European experience. Pep would make sense. We play most closely to a German style so a German coach would make sense. Yes, Klinnsman was German, but he was just a cheerleader, he was not a real German coach. The average coaching level there is highest IMO.

By German style I mean an aggressive press using ALL players (no Harry Kane walking), constant hustle, athleticism on the wings,

size on the back line,

and scoring on crosses and through quick counter attacks as well as breaking down the defense in the middle of the field. A German style fits our talent and our mentality and makes our fans happy, I think.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/49344382/who-new-usmnt-coach-11-candidates-pochettino-world-cup-2026

---

I dunno, I kinda like that cucuracha guy!!!

5'9" Marc Cucurella

---

same here, in large part because he's easy to follow but he's a bull dog doing lots of the dirty work and never stops

cal83dls79 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sluggo said:

---

If Poch leaves, which I hope he doesn't, here is a list of candidates to replace him. I just hope it is not an American MLS lifer nobody, we should have moved past that. Only Matarazzo should be considered among Americans with his European experience. Pep would make sense. We play most closely to a German style so a German coach would make sense. Yes, Klinnsman was German, but he was just a cheerleader, he was not a real German coach. The average coaching level there is highest IMO.

By German style I mean an aggressive press using ALL players (no Harry Kane walking), constant hustle, athleticism on the wings,

size on the back line,

and scoring on crosses and through quick counter attacks as well as breaking down the defense in the middle of the field. A German style fits our talent and our mentality and makes our fans happy, I think.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/49344382/who-new-usmnt-coach-11-candidates-pochettino-world-cup-2026

---

I dunno, I kinda like that cucuracha guy!!!

5'9" Marc Cucurella

---

same here, in large part because he's easy to follow but he's a bull dog doing lots of the dirty work and never stops

---

Also a great passer who sets up lots of goals. If Antonee Robinson could pass like him he would be playing for England, not us.

At times Cucurella does get outsized and beaten by bigger players, it is his only weakness that I see.

sluggo said:

---

The best current US attacker who did not make the USMNT roster (Banks is the best defender, I don't know who the best keeper is but some people think it is Kochen). He could be one of those dominant wingers that the best teams have but we don't have yet. Fast, dribbly, great stamina, shoots with both feet, really everything. Need to see against better competition. His team is saying they won't sell him. I hope that is just to push the price up. He needs to go to Europe immediately. I think he is worth about 20 million, but that depends on how long his contract stretches. MLS tries to tie up young players too long, but he is someone who was not such a star when he was younger, so maybe he could not resist. I can explain international soccer contracts if anyone is interested. It is sort of the same but sort of different than American sports.

Transfermarket, the website for valuing players, has him for much less. I think they need an update.

Zavier Gozo’s goal for RSL last night in a 4-1 friendly win over Burnley (who are having a nightmare preseason tour in the USA)

Gozo could be with the #USMNT soon, but I think it would be good for him to lead the Olympic team in 2028 pic.twitter.com/XxVaGIKg2E

— Brian Sciaretta (@BrianSciaretta) July 16, 2026

https://www.transfermarkt.us/zavier-gozo/profil/spieler/1007383

---

I am interested, as I keep hearing references to that stuff, but have no idea how it works. Nothing too complicated, please (if possible). For example, I thought I knew the basics of the NBA salary cap strategies, but now they're talking about "aprons" and I kinda don't want to know that much.

And the flip version of that photo is Messi bare-bottom spanking the crying baby!

sluggo said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sluggo said:

---

If Poch leaves, which I hope he doesn't, here is a list of candidates to replace him. I just hope it is not an American MLS lifer nobody, we should have moved past that. Only Matarazzo should be considered among Americans with his European experience. Pep would make sense. We play most closely to a German style so a German coach would make sense. Yes, Klinnsman was German, but he was just a cheerleader, he was not a real German coach. The average coaching level there is highest IMO.

By German style I mean an aggressive press using ALL players (no Harry Kane walking), constant hustle, athleticism on the wings,

size on the back line,

and scoring on crosses and through quick counter attacks as well as breaking down the defense in the middle of the field. A German style fits our talent and our mentality and makes our fans happy, I think.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/49344382/who-new-usmnt-coach-11-candidates-pochettino-world-cup-2026

---

I dunno, I kinda like that cucuracha guy!!!

5'9" Marc Cucurella

---

same here, in large part because he's easy to follow but he's a bull dog doing lots of the dirty work and never stops

---

Also a great passer who sets up lots of goals. If Antonee Robinson could pass like him he would be playing for England, not us.

At times Cucurella does get outsized and beaten by bigger players, it is his only weakness that I see.

---

Good points re Robinson.
Yes, his touch leaves something to be desired.


Reminds me of a teammate of one of my girls, on club. She went around saying endlessly when doing passing drills, "touch is everything!"

sluggo said:

---

I can explain international soccer contracts if anyone is interested. It is sort of the same but sort of different than American sports.

Transfermarket, the website for valuing players, has him for much less. I think they need an update.


https://www.transfermarkt.us/zavier-gozo/profil/spieler/1007383

---

Yeah, I still don't get the transfer market.
How does the selling club get money and that should go to a player?
Like, the buying club has to negotiate two fees: the fee to the selling club and the actual salary to the player. Why doesn't a player just become a free agent with zero transfer fee and then pocket a larger salary?

Like, in the nba, trans would rather sign an unrestricted free agent than have to trade for him, giving up valuable assets. Those valuable nba assets are equivalent in Europe to transfer fees.

But I never heard of a free agent in soccer.

(There's a reason everyone wants LeBron now. You give up nothing in a trade (doesn't exist, he's a UFA) and he's not even asking for much money anymore. Crazy. 20 ppg, for free.

Heat map animation of England's retreat as soon as they scored.
Avg ball line 50 yards from goal to 20 yards.

I think they had a courier deliver a paper message: here, you can come score now.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/articles/heat-map-animation-showed-englands-200745473.html

Big C said:

---

sluggo said:

---

The best current US attacker who did not make the USMNT roster (Banks is the best defender, I don't know who the best keeper is but some people think it is Kochen). He could be one of those dominant wingers that the best teams have but we don't have yet. Fast, dribbly, great stamina, shoots with both feet, really everything. Need to see against better competition. His team is saying they won't sell him. I hope that is just to push the price up. He needs to go to Europe immediately. I think he is worth about 20 million, but that depends on how long his contract stretches. MLS tries to tie up young players too long, but he is someone who was not such a star when he was younger, so maybe he could not resist. I can explain international soccer contracts if anyone is interested. It is sort of the same but sort of different than American sports.

Transfermarket, the website for valuing players, has him for much less. I think they need an update.

https://www.transfermarkt.us/zavier-gozo/profil/spieler/1007383

---

I am interested, as I keep hearing references to that stuff, but have no idea how it works. Nothing too complicated, please (if possible). For example, I thought I knew the basics of the NBA salary cap strategies, but now they're talking about "aprons" and I kinda don't want to know that much.

---

Simple version:
1) Free agents are free agents and can move anywhere for free like in the US. And no restriction of movement between European soccer leagues.
2) Players under contract who are wanted by another club have their contracts sold to another club at a negotiated rate. So when Christian Pulisic went from Borussia Dortmund (BD) to Chelsea for like 40 million dollars Chelsea paid BD 40 million dollars. But for the purchase to go through the player has to also agree to personal terms with the purchasing club. So if Pulisic was getting x dollars from BD he can negotiate getting x+y dollars from Chelsea for the deal to go through. Sometimes the personal terms are negotiated first, sometimes the contract purchase is negotiated first. So you will see headlines like "Pulisic has agreed to terms with Spurs" meaning IF Spurs purchases his contract both sides have settled on his salary. (The Spurs example is made up, the sale to Chelsea was real.)
3) For young players there is no draft. Players before their first contract can play with whoever will have them. Big clubs will have teams that go down to elementary school age. At around 16 a player will sign their first professional contract. So little club in Bavaria may develop a player from 6 to 16 but they sign their first contract at 16 with Bayern. So little club in Bavaria is screwed? Not really. Some money from player contracts flows back to the clubs that developed them (or at least that they played for). This is how the world development system exists EXCEPT in the USA. Weston McKennie played as a youth for FC Dallas but at 18 went to FC Schalke in Germany. FC Dallas got nothing. Why the exception in the USA? Labor law. Or lawsuits. Or whatever. It is an ongoing issue.
4) If you are American (or any non-European) you can play in Europe once you are 18 unless you have European grandparents (or a closer connection) in which case you can go when you are 16. Right now the best American players are going through MLS development even if they can go to Europe. Which is good and bad. I have more to say about that but this post is already way too long. One more thing: there was a time when European teams would bring poor youngsters (like 12-14) from Africa and keep them if they were good and discard them on the street if they were not. It was ugly. That led to the 16/18 rule above.

Just read the bolded part for 80% of what I am saying.

What a front page 🙌🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇦🇷👍 pic.twitter.com/V92J62mSox

— Sir Tommy Farmer (@SirNotTomFarmer) July 17, 2026

Crazy number for Balogun. I guess Pulisic must have gone to Chelsea for slightly more.

If you read my post on soccer contracts you can interpret this tweet.

🇺🇸👀 Sunderland are the latest club to have been linked with Folarin Balogun.

AS Monaco are reportedly demanding around $56m for the USMNT striker. This would make him the second-most expensive American player ever. pic.twitter.com/ZHksXQXG71

— Yanks Report (@yanks_reporter) July 16, 2026

Not sure when the USMNT plays next (CONCACAF Nations' League in September?).

But I was curious on how the roster and starting lineup is likely to evolve in the short term, understanding that there are longer-term prospects like Gozo on the horizon for 2030 and that some of the top-line players may not play when it's not a big tournament or if they are injured.

But let's pretend the US had to play in a critical match later in 2026 and everyone is healthy and available. For example, does Trusty replace Ream alongside Richards at center back? (Or perhaps move Freeman inside?)

sluggo said:

---

sycasey said:

---

sluggo said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

As I continue my learning journey, let me ask the following:

Obviously, England was bunkering (turtleing, whatever) and obviously, it didn't work.

What specifically should they have been doing so that Argentina wasn't able to camp on their side of the field taking shots and initiating crosses until two balls finally went into the net?

Seems quite analogous to sticking with a prevent defense and an ultra-conservative offense in American football, in which case I could answer this myself... but help me out with soccer.

---

Unfortunately Cal fans who lived through Wilcox should be all too familiar with that.

---

I was going to talk about Wilcox, but I did not want to alienate anyone, but since you did first, I think England lost in a very Wilcoxian way. Losing is fine but losing passively feels ten times worse.

---

It was basically us taking a lead because of Mendoza's passing and then taking the ball out of his hands for most of the 4th quarter while the opponent grinds us down. So like the Miami game or the Pitt game or . . . sigh.

---

The "..." says it all. Too many to count. I know Tosh will lose sometimes, that is part of competition, but it will be because Cal was beaten, not because Cal laid down. I used to talk about how Wilcox managed losses. Like we were going to lose without taking chances, but we might lose worse if we took those chances, so we didn't. F*** that.

---

Wanted to take the opportunity to say that although we had different opinions on how far the US team could go in the tournament, I've enjoyed your posts and your enthusiasm. Good stuff.