Great thing about Ozil is that he isn't the kind of playmaker that gets frustrated and pouts if he doesn't get the ball, he just finds other ways to be effective for the team. "Germany were brave, and risked being caught on the break by leaving Sneijder free between the lines, but the alternate forward runs from Schweinsteiger and Khedira confused van Bommel, while de Jong was distracted by Ozil’s usual selfless off-the-ball movement to the flanks." http://www.zonalmarking.net/2012/06/14/germany-2-1-holland-tactics/
Some random personal opinions: - Ozil is the best creator in the world today, whether it is what he does on or off the ball. - The US win versus Spain was phenomenal, historic even. I think that game was telling for both teams. The US was much better with Charlie Davies on the field. He was not a perfect player, but he filled a role that nobody before or since has been able to fill and changed the entire team dynamic. Spain did not have Iniesta, and Silva did not play. Without those two, Spain is a very good team. With them, they are the best team in the world.
The United States threw our best 11 out on the day. This included Ricardo Clark, Jonathan Spector and Jay DeMerit. Even Jonathan Bornstein and Conor Casey played at the end. And we beat Torres, Villa, Xavi, Fabergas, Puyol, Ramos, Pique, Casillas and the others. Spain had not lost, regardless of their starting 11, since 2006, and were enjoying an unbeaten run of 35 matches. Many times, I have seen the better team lose, have even, rarely, been on the receiving end of this. We won that day exactly three years ago today and it was glorious. It was one of only two times, and both in important tournaments, that we defeated the number one side in the world.
Grin, fair enough, again Spain had lost nothing in three years, 35 matches. Folks in Amsterdam might be saying the same thing about the Euros, today . . People regularly on these boards regularly dismiss the Gold Cup. The Women's World Cup was once considered an afterthought. I am a fan of Spain, I admire their play and sportsmanship. They lost that day, in a match certainly they would preferred to and have been expected to win. The real point is props to the USA.
Credit where credit's due that was a great fighting performance. I'm just not sure that match will have ended the same if it would have been at a world cup or if USA somehow makes it to the Euro Cup. It's totally different level of pressure.
What does that mean? It was a semifinal and both teams played their best 11. Both teams were trying to win. If it were actually a friendly, it would still be impressive. Don't downplay it just because it's an unexpected result.
I agree it was no World Cup game, but Spain wanted to win, without question. I do not think the loss came down to desire. In these Championships we are reminded even at the highest levels, there are a few truly special, irreplaceable players in the world. For Spain, we have Iniesta. Germany has Ozil. Italy has Pirlo, etc. Our teams are different when those players are not available. They take us from being very good to being among the very best. I guess it could be argued the difference those players make is marginal. I would disagree, but so be it. At the top the difference between teams usually is marginal. Similarly but not at the same level, Davies brought some special characteristics to the US Team. His strength, ability to hold off defenders, and his pace transformed the US into an elite team in transition. And while his technique was not perfect, his forward's instincts were excellent. So we are reminded a lot of things have to fall into place to make a run at a championship like this, perhaps most importantly your best players being in good form.
I wish we had a Pirlo. Dang, I can't believe he had the cojones to chip Hart the way he did during the penalty shootout when they had already missed one. Major cojones.
As I watched the game, I was thinking, "The U.S. is better at playing this game than England," and, "England would kill for Landon Donovan and Michael Bradley in this game."
Bradley???? Sheeeeiiiiiiid. Donovan did do the biz in the Prem and could've done something on the right. Dempsey on the other hand would have cashed in one of the chances England created. The big gulf in class between England and USA is England have infinitely better centerbacks.
Rooney is one of those players who perhaps because of work habits(when not under the leash of SAF) and/or genetics has difficulty carrying anything near peak performance into summer campaigns. Bit like Altidore in those respects.
This has generally been my mindset when I watched England play during the tournament. Their play has generally regressed. I kinda think that they look like how we used to under Bob: a bunker and counterattacking team that can typically get the job done with most teams, but struggles to compete against the elite teams. Though I think we did a better job of at least looking motivated to keep going at said teams. Their center-backs are pretty boss though. * The penalty shootouts will forever be the Achilles heel of the team. I don't know what it is about the English and penalties, but no matter how good they play, it's like they've already lost when it's time to take them.
This makes no sense whatsoever. The teams played like they desperately wanted it. Also before that US played Spain in Madrid closely losing 1-0 despite missing key players. US has gotten results in competition and friendlies against Italy and Spain in recent years....
Novelty. Italy going 352 against Spain was daring especially when conventional wisdom is to use it against 2 striker formations. Germany swapping out key attackers to change the emphasis more from counter to attack was also nice tilt away from conservatism.
I don't think they'd want him for every game, but he looked great countering against Italy in '09. England were desperate for midfield support in the attack. Gerrard is a better all-around player than pretty much anybody the U.S. has, but this was not his kind of game, I don't think. They are better generally, but they looked just as hapless in possession as ours in this game.
The centerbacks had little problem passing it out of the back. The possession issues were a bit further upfield.
Yeah, this result looks even rosier with the benefit of hindsight. It's not like Spain started Casillas, Puyol, Xavi and Villa with a mixture of backups which would validate the "friendly" excuse. With the exception of Riera* for the injured Iniesta, the Spanish starting XI was full strength. (Senna was hurt, and since Alonso hadn't been as effective as a DM since the mid-00s that was damaging as well, but DB may have made that lineup change anyways.) *Del Bosque went with Riera over Silva, Cazorla and Mata.
Precisely... And, um, that Rooney guy. And strikers in general. In the midfield... yeah, you'd still pick England, but not by nearly as much as the name recognition to an English fan would lead you to believe.
FYI, for years Spain consistently punched below their weight in International competion. They had only achieved a fourth place finish in the 1950 in the WC before 2010. They did win the Euros in 1964 before 2008. After the USA win at the Confederations Cup, and lost to Switzerland 1-0 in their World Cup opener many had concerns that the Spaniards had fallen back to their old ways. The joke was on the pundits as the loss to Switzerland was the only points they gave up in their group as they went to to WC Glory. In 2012, their record is 7-0-1(draw) with 21 goals scored and 2 conceded. I would agree with Schutebuck, in hindsight, the accomplishment of beating Spain in the Confederations Cup was quite a feat.
Gerrard had a terrific group phase, but he was lost today vs Italy. He and Parker really failed to do anything against Italy's superior midfield. The game wasn't really much different from the US friendly vs Italy earlier this year. Italy dominated possession and chances created, but couldn't score. For the US, Dempsey finished one of the few opportunities, and voila! Johnson missing that early opportunity contrasts directly with Dempsey's later score vs Italy. The thing I don't understand is why England let Pirlo roam about so freely. I would have played a 5-man midfield with Walcott starting at RM instead of Welbeck at striker. I would have had Milner follow Pirlo all over the field and harrass him every second. Leave Rooney up top for the counter threat, in combination with Walcott and Young along the wings and Gerrard as a 2-way CM. Nevertheless, Itlay deserved to advance. The semi-finals look like fun matchups.
Apparently England's most frequent passing combination was the goalkeeper to the striker that came on in the 60th minute. And this is why possession is a helpful capability.
"B-b-but, FOOTBALL'S COMING HOME and IT'S FOOTBALL, YOU DUMB YANK!" [/sarcasm] I'm more surprised that some English troll hasn't come on here to say that yet.
People always say this about Pirlo: "Why was he allowed so much time on the ball?!" Well the reason is no one can take it away from him. After he has played out of pressure from 2 or 3 players or drawn multiple fouls players give up trying to really pressure him and just try to make sure who ever is receiving the ball from him is marked up. The guy has been the best midfielder in the tournament and probably in Europe this season with Juventus. Italy will be a different side without him. The English side don't have any great wingers or forwards besides Rooney. And Rooney can't do it alone. Gerrard and Parker are pretty much done at this level I think