Colin Reese

After Alexi Lalas’ rant at halftime of the Seattle Sounders and L.A. Galaxy game, Max Bretos and Herculez Gomez had a field day with the former player’s comment on the Max & Herc podcast for ESPN.

In the podcast, Gomez also shared his thoughts on Craig Burley of ESPN’s view of the U.S. team. Gomez described the Lalas rant as ‘over the top.’ For his part, Bretos didn’t seem to have a problem in general with the comments or their targets. Bretos did point out that Lalas’ comments were very pointed.

Speaking about Burley, Gomez had this to say:

“Our ESPN colleague Craig Burley and I had a discussion on (ESPN)FC, and you have to understand. These guys are showman. Craig doesn’t want to talk about CONCACAF. He doesn’t want to talk about the league…so he changes the narrative to what he wants to talk about.”

He went on further to say:

“Craig couldn’t name the squad. He couldn’t name the players. He doesn’t care. He plays his persona, and that’s why he’s successful at what he does” Speaking about Lalas, Gomez had this to say: “To me this feels like a cop out. It feels like a cheap plagiarism. A little over the top.”

Gomez separated himself from other American soccer analysts by not being afraid to question the actual knowledge of a non-American pundit. Part of Burley’s worldview is that there is no real soccer played in CONCACAF, and Gomez essentially called him willfully ignorant. Instead of actually talking about the team and the players, Burley will just talk in sweeping generalizations about the U.S. team while forcing whomever he is speaking to to answer “yes or no” questions without allowing the person to give a nuanced answer.

Already we see Gomez as an analyst and pundit who isn’t intimidated or bullied around by pundits from Europe or the British Isles. He knows his soccer, and he’s not shy about calling a colleague out for not knowing enough on a certain topic. Gomez was pointing out how Burley’s opinion shouldn’t matter if he doesn’t know the team or the players and doesn’t want to know.

Now looking at Gomez’s comments about Lalas, it certainly wasn’t plagiarism by Lalas. Lalas sounded off on various players for specific reasons, whereas Burley just talked about the same topic of the U.S. national team.

Gomez gave specific retorts to all of Lalas’ player attacks. He argued that goalkeeper wasn’t a position where the U.S. was weak. The former player contended that Lalas wasn’t specific about how Bradley could play better. He also shared his opinion that Altidore’s scoring record speaks for itself.

Gomez went on to say this about Lalas:

“It’s over the top from Alexi. He’s pandering. He’s playing to the crowd when he says it’s dark days indeed. He didn’t say it when the U.S. beat Honduras in… what was it? 6-0 in San Jose? Then they went to Panama and they tied, and the U.S. did not play well. And he didn’t say that. He says it now because of the Costa Rica game. The U.S. whenever they go on the road they don’t play well. Nobody plays well on the road. They all just get results. They all just try to get results.”

And the most personal aspect of his response to Lalas was, “Alexi Lalas was known more for his look than his play.”

Gomez laced into Lalas a little more when he said, “There’s a sentiment with the players that that whole 94’ class is still in a way bitter that they didn’t get their due.”

Unlike Gomez, Bretos found Lalas’s comments more entertaining than controversial. Bretos knows much more about world soccer and American soccer than most in the United States, and his opinions and thoughts were insightful and accurate as usual. He was right to point out that Lalas’ comments were nothing compared to what people say in other countries about their clubs and national teams where he said pundits ‘empty the chamber’ when criticizing.

Despite all of Gomez’s various critiques of both Lalas and Burley’s comments about the U.S. team, Gomez declared the result of Lalas’ rant good.

Alexi Lalas’ rant about the U.S. National Team poor play against Costa Rica and Honduras was just what the doctor ordered for U.S. soccer because the remarks were entertaining and funny without being overly personal or insulting. They were a little personal and insulting, but not overly so.

The delivery of his takes tended toward the mean, but they weren’t off base or wrong.

His comments should inspire some more specific discussion of the play of the various U.S. players instead of U.S. Soccer trying to tell the media and fans that they aren’t allowed to have an opinion. Even Max Bretos, who is discussed below, pointed out how there’s a fear that any criticism of U.S. Soccer would create a toxic relationship with the federation.

Alexi Lalas just called out basically everybody involved with the USMNT. pic.twitter.com/usPKcIO0vM

— Total MLS (@TotalMLS) September 11, 2017

Lalas’ rant was funny, and if you didn’t think so, then you might be too uptight. It was after all a staged performance with the desired effect of getting more discussion of the U.S.’s play.

Tim Howard was criticized for not making a save. Geoff Cameron was criticized for a sloppy pass. Clint Dempsey was criticized for not leading. Michael Bradley was criticized for not playing well enough. Jozy Altidore was criticized for not playing up to his potential.

The comments were insulting, but they didn’t feel too insulting.

There is a definite feeling that Lalas in a way made it acceptable for the American press to be more critical of the U.S.’s play. Despite this, Lalas’ comments were not well received by Greg Vanney, the coach of Toronto FC.

It was telling how Michael Bradley and Jozy Altidore’s coach for Toronto FC complained about Lalas’ right to criticize his players in public. Criticizing soccer players’ play during a soccer broadcast is ubiquitous around the world, but some felt Lalas, a soccer analyst and commentator, didn’t have the right to share his soccer opinions. To be fair, Lalas’ comments were delivered in a Piers Morgan-esque meanness.

Maybe the Lalas rant will inspire some more specific and advance discussion of the United States’ play in the future instead of so many people throwing up resistence to anyone’s right to critique the U.S.’s play.

Until now, it has felt like U.S. Soccer (The United States Soccer Federation) and the players have tried to tell everyone that nobody else in the U.S. knows anything about soccer. Bradley in particular under both Jürgen Klinsmann and Bruce Arena has tried very hard to dismiss any observations that the media or fans have made about the team’s play.

The United States Men’s National Team played poorly against Costa Rica and Honduras, but the problems are fixable with a formation change. Bruce Arena used the 4-4-2 formation for both games, and there was little creativity or team passing.

Christian Pulisic was left to carry most of the creative load from a wide position in both games, and his individual dribbling was impressive. Without Clint Dempsey starting against Costa Rica, the United States had very few ideas or combination play in the final third.

Passing was the real problem against both opponents, despite the defense understandably getting much of the blame.

The United States Finally Faced Appropriate Domestic Criticism for their style of play and performance

Plenty of pundits, journalists, and fans laced into the United States for their poor performances, and none more so than Alexi Lalas. Lalas was clearly looking for his rant to go viral and rile people up. Nevertheless, nothing in the rant was really off base. Tim Howard, Michael Bradley, Geoff Cameron, and Clint Dempsey were taken to task for various reasons.

Howard was criticized for not saving the first goal against Costa Rica, and Cameron for a bad pass, which led to a goal. Bradley’s zen mentality was questioned, presumably because he always tries to appear calm and level-headed. Dempsey’s leadership was oddly questioned as he only started the second game.

Bruce Arena’s Tactics Have Been Bad Recently

Despite the Lalas rant, Arena got his tactics wrong in both games. By using the 4-4-2, the United States had no playmaking in the center of the midfield against Costa Rica. A 4-2-3-1 formation against Honduras would have given the United States more midfield defending in the second game. But Arena went with the 4-4-2 again resulting in the same problem.

Perhaps the problem was that Arena didn’t go with just one striker against Honduras when he added Kellyn Acosta as another center midfielder with Bradley. The same hole between the midfield and attack existed in both games, and Pulisic tried his best to make up for this.

Looking Toward the next World Cup Qualifiers

In the next World Cup qualifier, Arena should go with the 4-1-3-2 or the 4-2-3-1 formation in order to fix the creativity and passing weaknesses. Pulisic is certainly versatile enough to play wide in a fluid attacking three allowing he and Dempsey to move around.

Arena does have the option of calling up Lee Nguyen of the New England Revolution. With Sebastian Lletget and Kelyn Rowe injured, Nguyen along with Benny Feilhaber is the only playmaker with the skill set and pace to play at the international level. Both playmakers are proven at the international level.

Amidst all of the criticism of the U.S. team, the talent is still there to possess the ball well and score goals. Arena has reverted to the prehistoric 4-4-2 formation, but maybe he has come to his senses.

The United States should be able to put in a much better performance against Panama, and they will have to. To be on more solid World Cup qualifying ground, the U.S. needs all three points, and three more points against Trinidad and Tobago.

In a formation where Bradley and Acosta sit behind Nagbe, Dempsey, and Pulisic with Wood up top, the United States have no excuse for not keeping possession and scoring more easily.

The shambolic performances against Costa Rica and Honduras proved that the United States still needs a playmaker. At the very least, Bruce Arena needs to always actually play Christian Pulisic as a playmaker.

To be clear, Arena definitely fielded players that should have been able to keep possession and slice up Costa Rica and Honduras. The players definitely deserve the bulk of the blame.

Arena and the United States had a formula that worked. That formula was Michael Bradley as the lone defensive midfielder behind three attacking midfielders and two forwards. The U.S. players should have been able to adapt to the 4-4-2 formation and still possess the ball well, but they didn’t.

Against Costa Rica and Honduras, U.S. coach Arena went with the empty bucket formation, and the team’s passing suffered. In both games, Pulisic was playing wide without Mario Götze there to be the playmaker like at Borussia Dortmund.

Christian Pulisic Has Impressed as a Playmaker

Pulisic has been impressive in the past as a playmaker for the U.S. It’s hard to remember another American player besides Benny Feilhaber who showed real artistry and boldness in his final balls.

Probably the biggest evidence of Pulisic’s playmaking abilities for the U.S. was how in the past he knew exactly how to feed Clint Dempsey and executed it. Pulisic saw and executed passes to Dempsey a second or so faster than other American players were able to do. Pulisic has quickly chipped the defense to find Dempsey, and he has hit him on the break in stride.

Darlington Nagbe at Playmaker Hasn’t Worked

Arena has tried to force Darlington Nagbe into something of a playmaker role, but it doesn’t work. Nagbe doesn’t have many playmaking qualities. That’s not to say that Nagbe can’t pass. It’s simply saying that Nagbe doesn’t play the balls that Benny Feilhaber, Lee Nguyen, Sebastian Lletget, or Kelyn Rowe play.

Nagbe doesn’t dictate that the team play through him by presenting himself as a return passing option once he releases the ball. The Portland Timbers midfielder also doesn’t play the type of incisive passes needed to slice up an opponent.

Nagbe mostly makes dribbling forays, and he’s good for a spectacular goal every once in a while. Nevertheless, looking to orchestrate the team’s passing more is likely in his wheelhouse.

The United States Has Other Playmaker Options like Lee Nguyen

After seeing the United States’ inability to pass against both Costa Rica and Honduras, Arena would be wise to recall Lee Nguyen, who is a gifted playmaker who also has quickness and 1v1 skills. Nguyen also knows how to score. Nguyen can’t be accused of not having the pace or intensity needed for international play.

Even when Pulisic plays wing he will have plenty of freedom to cut inside and play centrally. Calling up Nguyen gives the United States both a backup playmaker and a playmaker to start if Pulisic plays wide.