Well, I'll reply in any case, even though your friend's approach of taking a personally insulting tone was unnecessary. It sounds like he has looked up where players play and some rudimentary statistics without actually watching these games themselves.
Soccer is indeed akin to basketball in terms of lineup construction. So I'll use a Stanford Men's Basketball analogy. There's no question that Delaire is more "talented" than Keefe. But good coaching isn't just putting your five most talented players on the floor, or the five players with the highest recruiting rankings. If Ingram and Jones are on the floor a complementary player such as Keefe can be much more valuable than a redundant scorer or a player who is trying to do too much. Stanford has frequently played better with Keefe on the floor instead of Delaire. And even in positionless basketball some specific functions need to be covered by someone, e.g. protecting the rim, guarding the wings, bringing the ball up against pressure. You can't just start five outside shooters because they are your best players.
This was the downfall of the England national team's "Golden Generation" in the aughts. They had an incredibly talented collection of players that repeatedly underachieved. One of the problems was that arguably their two best players (Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard) played the exact same position with a similar style of play. So they would either both play and more or less get in each other's way or one of them (usually Gerrard wide left) would play out of position. In retrospect everyone involved has said that they would have been better off playing one at a time with a complementary player to do the "dirty work".
I'm a brobdingnagian Aaronsen fan. But your friend explicitly said "Acosta instead of Aaronsen", meaning that either he didn't know that they play totally different positions or that (as he claims now) he was suggesting playing without a dedicated defensive midfielder, i.e. play your best ten field players regardless of how they fit together. With a four man back line (two central defenders) it would be highly unusual to play without a defensive midfielder, or to play someone out of position who will provide more attacking without much attention to protecting the back line (e.g. your friend's suggestion of Dest, who doesn't play much defense at all even when he's at outside back).
Regarding Aaronsen vs Morris, note that 1) Aaronsen played poorly against both El Salvador and Canada, so this could have been a message to both him and the team as a whole that starting spots are not automatic, 2) The Austria Bundesliga has been on break since December 12, so he hasn't been playing in "real" matches much more recently than Morris. Saying that Aaronsen is in "mid-season" is technically true but the season was suspended almost two months ago.
Berhalter said before last night's match that one reason he was starting Acosta was because he was the best set piece taker available. The US had only scored four set piece goals out of the last 47 goals scored dating back to the start of 2021, and zero set piece goals in the first 10 qualifying games. As it turned out Acosta initiated all three goals through set pieces. So besides his defensive work he also was put into the lineup to provide a function that the wingers (Pulisic and Aaronsen primarily, since they had been the primary set piece takers) hadn't been delivering.
Your friend inferred that now I think Berhalter is a good coach. That's simply a cheap shot because I said in two separate posts that he's not a top level coach and that the US should replace him for the next cycle. But just because someone is a mediocre coach doesn't mean that every single lineup decision is wrong. Your friend is taking a FIFA video game approach: pick the eleven players with the biggest reputations. In the real world you have to consider how they fit together, how they match up against the opponent, what specific skills they bring, how they have been performing recently, etc. in addition to meta considerations (motivating both your regular starters and your reserves). Not to mention that this was the US's third game in a week, all played on substandard fields in very cold weather, so perhaps some players looked tired in training and Berhalter prioritized fresher players who would bring more energy and physicality. We weren't in camp observing training sessions. They do tests every day that measure how a player has recovered and whether he's ready to go hard for ninety minutes. It was a bizarre lineup on the surface but it wasn't totally illogical either. At least there appeared to be some thought process behind it instead of just "these players are most famous so they must play."
Anyway, I don't want to be too hard on your friend. I assume he's in the 13-15 age range if he feels the need to resort to something as juvenile as calling me "PedanticFarmMLSfan13" instead of just making some factual arguments.
Soccer is indeed akin to basketball in terms of lineup construction. So I'll use a Stanford Men's Basketball analogy. There's no question that Delaire is more "talented" than Keefe. But good coaching isn't just putting your five most talented players on the floor, or the five players with the highest recruiting rankings. If Ingram and Jones are on the floor a complementary player such as Keefe can be much more valuable than a redundant scorer or a player who is trying to do too much. Stanford has frequently played better with Keefe on the floor instead of Delaire. And even in positionless basketball some specific functions need to be covered by someone, e.g. protecting the rim, guarding the wings, bringing the ball up against pressure. You can't just start five outside shooters because they are your best players.
This was the downfall of the England national team's "Golden Generation" in the aughts. They had an incredibly talented collection of players that repeatedly underachieved. One of the problems was that arguably their two best players (Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard) played the exact same position with a similar style of play. So they would either both play and more or less get in each other's way or one of them (usually Gerrard wide left) would play out of position. In retrospect everyone involved has said that they would have been better off playing one at a time with a complementary player to do the "dirty work".
I'm a brobdingnagian Aaronsen fan. But your friend explicitly said "Acosta instead of Aaronsen", meaning that either he didn't know that they play totally different positions or that (as he claims now) he was suggesting playing without a dedicated defensive midfielder, i.e. play your best ten field players regardless of how they fit together. With a four man back line (two central defenders) it would be highly unusual to play without a defensive midfielder, or to play someone out of position who will provide more attacking without much attention to protecting the back line (e.g. your friend's suggestion of Dest, who doesn't play much defense at all even when he's at outside back).
Regarding Aaronsen vs Morris, note that 1) Aaronsen played poorly against both El Salvador and Canada, so this could have been a message to both him and the team as a whole that starting spots are not automatic, 2) The Austria Bundesliga has been on break since December 12, so he hasn't been playing in "real" matches much more recently than Morris. Saying that Aaronsen is in "mid-season" is technically true but the season was suspended almost two months ago.
Berhalter said before last night's match that one reason he was starting Acosta was because he was the best set piece taker available. The US had only scored four set piece goals out of the last 47 goals scored dating back to the start of 2021, and zero set piece goals in the first 10 qualifying games. As it turned out Acosta initiated all three goals through set pieces. So besides his defensive work he also was put into the lineup to provide a function that the wingers (Pulisic and Aaronsen primarily, since they had been the primary set piece takers) hadn't been delivering.
Your friend inferred that now I think Berhalter is a good coach. That's simply a cheap shot because I said in two separate posts that he's not a top level coach and that the US should replace him for the next cycle. But just because someone is a mediocre coach doesn't mean that every single lineup decision is wrong. Your friend is taking a FIFA video game approach: pick the eleven players with the biggest reputations. In the real world you have to consider how they fit together, how they match up against the opponent, what specific skills they bring, how they have been performing recently, etc. in addition to meta considerations (motivating both your regular starters and your reserves). Not to mention that this was the US's third game in a week, all played on substandard fields in very cold weather, so perhaps some players looked tired in training and Berhalter prioritized fresher players who would bring more energy and physicality. We weren't in camp observing training sessions. They do tests every day that measure how a player has recovered and whether he's ready to go hard for ninety minutes. It was a bizarre lineup on the surface but it wasn't totally illogical either. At least there appeared to be some thought process behind it instead of just "these players are most famous so they must play."
Anyway, I don't want to be too hard on your friend. I assume he's in the 13-15 age range if he feels the need to resort to something as juvenile as calling me "PedanticFarmMLSfan13" instead of just making some factual arguments.