What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

US Men's National Team (12 Viewers)

:shrug:

Someone's going to sit, but hell if I know.

Can't really recall a time when the US had so many players in form. Let alone playing in big leagues. Qatar can't get here soon enough.
 
Last edited:
Ages at the World Cup

Jedi - 28
CP, McKennie, Adams - 27
Weah - 26
Dest - 25
Aaronson - 24
Reyna - 23
Musah - 22

The NEXT World Cup.

We find a couple of stud CBs, one kick *** center forward, and fill in the #s with a few more top players in the next four years and this will be a core of tested veterans, in their primes, playing at home. Especially if Slolina or one of the other GKs develops they could really make some noise.

As tasty as it might be this year is still just the appetizer.

ETA: looking at each age, it's one player per birth year -- except for the 27s. So who's your single best player out there playing today at 16,17,18? Slolina maybe? And...
 
Last edited:
So we have guys playing CL today from Chelsea, Milan, Juve, Dortmund and Celtic - anybody I’m missing?

The one odd ball in Cohen starting in goal for Maccabi Haifa

Brooks dressed for Benfica but did not play.

Tomorrow we could have Sands and Tillman both playing. Owen will likely dress but possibly not play.
 
Last edited:
I sometimes fantasize about Weston dominating in the air on set pieces in the World Cup, but then I remember we don't have anyone who's very good at taking them.
Can't remember if it was Nation's League or Gold Cup, but he straight beasted on set pieces. Scored one or two and was just consistently winning the first ball.
 
I sometimes fantasize about Weston dominating in the air on set pieces in the World Cup, but then I remember we don't have anyone who's very good at taking them.
Can't remember if it was Nation's League or Gold Cup, but he straight beasted on set pieces. Scored one or two and was just consistently winning the first ball.

might have been the most interesting US game ever. So much happened in this game

 
At what point does the coach have to consider Pulisic in a super-sub role?
It seems like sacrilege, but it's a good question with the way everyone else is playing.
I got roasted on this very thread for suggesting this waaaaaay back during the last round of WCQ games earlier this year. About time everyone caught up to me.

GGG sat Pulisic during a couple of crucial WCQiers so we know he is not scared to sit him if he has to. And to Pulisic's credit, both times he was benched, responded with goals when he came on as a sub.
 
:shrug:

Someone's going to sit, but hell if I know.

Can't really recall a time when the US had so many players in form. Let alone playing in big leagues. Qatar can't get here soon enough.

At what point does the coach have to consider Pulisic in a super-sub role?

At the point he wants repeatedly smash his thumb with a hammer and then be fired.
At what point does the coach have to consider Pulisic in a super-sub role?
It seems like sacrilege, but it's a good question with the way everyone else is playing.
I got roasted on this very thread for suggesting this waaaaaay back during the last round of WCQ games earlier this year. About time everyone caught up to me.

You should have been roasted then and broiled now.
 
I’m not in favor of CP being a super sub as I still think he’s seen as the captain/leader of the team, he’s still consistently played well despite injuries and he’s just that talented. However, the idea isn’t crazy but I think that says more about his “competition” than it does about him. Gio is Gio; Aaronson has made the leap and is a defenders nightmare; Weah looks super dangerous.

I still think out #9 problem is staring us in the face - put Weah or CP up there and get after it.
 
Apparently Brighton have given permission to Chelsea to speak to Graham Potter. If that happens and Pulisic deserves to start, he’ll start.
 
:shrug:

Someone's going to sit, but hell if I know.

Can't really recall a time when the US had so many players in form. Let alone playing in big leagues. Qatar can't get here soon enough.

At what point does the coach have to consider Pulisic in a super-sub role?

At the point he wants repeatedly smash his thumb with a hammer and then be fired.
At what point does the coach have to consider Pulisic in a super-sub role?
It seems like sacrilege, but it's a good question with the way everyone else is playing.
I got roasted on this very thread for suggesting this waaaaaay back during the last round of WCQ games earlier this year. About time everyone caught up to me.

You should have been roasted then and broiled now.
At least I'll have company.
 
Seems a bit off to let your manager spend a gazillion dollars and then fire him a couple of games into the season. I get you don't want a start to be so bad you can't recover from it but this does not seem like good team management from the front office/owner IMO.
 
Seems a bit off to let your manager spend a gazillion dollars and then fire him a couple of games into the season. I get you don't want a start to be so bad you can't recover from it but this does not seem like good team management from the front office/owner IMO.

Chelsea were never challenging Liverpool and City for the league (IMO) - if he wins that CL match yesterday then I'm unsure what the panic is for. Makes me wonder if Tuchel had worn out his welcome and that loss gave them a great excuse to get rid of him.
 
Last edited:
The talking heads ((Dempsey, Henry etc) discussing Pulisic and his situation. Some fair points made I think

I guess my only question is what does it mean to be "good enough for Chelsea?" I'm not sure Pulisic is good enough for Chelsea, but I'm also not sure that Chelsea has any attacker that is good enough for Chelsea. Maybe Sterling. Certainly not Havertz or Ziyech. Mount has looked it at times, but he's as hot and cold as Pulisic. Since Hazard left Tammy Abraham, Timo Werner, and Romelu Lukaku have all been deemed "not good enough for Chelsea." But aside from the CL run, there's not a ton of evidence that Chelsea has really consistently been a higher caliber team than Inter Milan or even Leipzig (I'll grant they've been better than Roma for the most part).

For all that, Chelsea has still scored more goals in Tuchel's last 50 games in charge than they did in his first 50. The big difference is the defense has been much worse, in part because Mendy has stopped looking like a candidate for the best keeper in the world.
 
The talking heads ((Dempsey, Henry etc) discussing Pulisic and his situation. Some fair points made I think

I guess my only question is what does it mean to be "good enough for Chelsea?" I'm not sure Pulisic is good enough for Chelsea, but I'm also not sure that Chelsea has any attacker that is good enough for Chelsea. Maybe Sterling. Certainly not Havertz or Ziyech. Mount has looked it at times, but he's as hot and cold as Pulisic. Since Hazard left Tammy Abraham, Timo Werner, and Romelu Lukaku have all been deemed "not good enough for Chelsea." But aside from the CL run, there's not a ton of evidence that Chelsea has really consistently been a higher caliber team than Inter Milan or even Leipzig (I'll grant they've been better than Roma for the most part).

For all that, Chelsea has still scored more goals in Tuchel's last 50 games in charge than they did in his first 50. The big difference is the defense has been much worse, in part because Mendy has stopped looking like a candidate for the best keeper in the world.

The only person likely more happy than Pulisic with the sacking is Ziyech. The guy came to the team as one of the most dynamic players in the world and he currently barely looks like a pro. His confidence is shot
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top