Yes, "exception that proves the rule" is one of those stupid, nonsensical phrases that people repeat without understanding it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule
Very poor marking from the Brazilian #3 Dodo. I don't see how Bradley had anything to do with this goal, although he could have hustled back a bit more.
Viscous tackles are probably slower than molasses and thus easy to evade. http://www.princeton.edu/~gasdyn/Research/T-C_Research_Folder/Viscosity_def.html
Haha, is this a shot at me for calling Ghana athletic? If not, no worries. If so, this is a very bizarre and irrational comment. I called Ghana an athletic team because they have athletic players. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you? Go through the roster and watch each player. They have several very fast, very strong, powerful players. That's just the way it is. Their race is irrelevant, and has no bearing on the analysis. They are what they are. Gyan, Atsu, Muntari, et al are amazingly athletic. Essien is getting a bit long in the tooth, but still pretty athletic. Eddie Johnson is fast. So is Break Shea. People and things are what they are. Don't be afraid to tell the truth.
Yeah, I've watched this several times and don't see how this is Bradley's fault - that was awful marking. Bradley would have had to run over his own teammate to defend that goal.
Remembering 2010, Ghana started 5 in the midfield and overpowered the US with short passing (including completely burning Ricardo Clark to the point that he still hasn't recovered). I remember applauding when the US brought on Feilhaber (for Findley??) to start the second half, and the US played well. I think that the key next year will be the same...don't get overrun in the central midfield. If the US can play some counters against that Ghana back line and keeper...I get the feeling they will be successful. They are going to have to play rope-a-dope - which Klinsy has gotten better at. Pack that midfield and wait.
The way to keep Ghana off us is to play with some dexterous attacking players so they stay back. You just said we improved when Feilhaber came on. He is not exactly a great defending mid.
Fair enough but it's 2013 not 1960. The world changes. Our President is black and the entire world just celebrated the life of a historic black leader. The time and place for being overly sensitive about this kind of thing was 20 years ago.
And yet, people are evidently still perfectly willing to use silly stereotypes (and even defend them). This isn't about being offended; I'm trying to build a little cultural literacy where there's a clear deficit. I pointed out the racist history of the "athletic brute" stereotype not because I think certain posters are racist, but because I understand that even well-informed people will repeat nonsense if it is considered the "conventional wisdom" or "common sense". Between CR7, Nani and Coentrao, Portugal is a much more dangerous team from an athleticism/speed perspective, yet how many times have posters remarked about the alleged speediness of the Ghanaians? Conversely, how often have the Portugese been referred to as "athletic", when it would probably suit them better? I don't think it will hurt anyone to challenge themselves to make arguments based on actual thoughtful observations rather than just repeating silly nonsesne.
You're doing something similar though. Reacting to a meme from the past instead of refuting a poster's description based on your observation of the Ghanaian team. Gyan's speed and power to a ball that was up for grabs with two US CBs is what knocked us out of the last world cup. I still remember Stuart Holden bouncing off Essien in a crucial play in a game against Chelsea, and there were reports of Muntari bundling Bradley off the ball in this past weekend's game. That physicality is what I think people are talking about. I know nothing about the team speed of Ghana, personally.
Everything people are expecting of the US team, Ghana will accomplish. They will beat the USMNT, tie Germany and beat Portugal to advance just slightly behind Germany who will have them on goal difference.
I want to find these "people" who are expecting the US to accomplish all of that. If you're talking about homers from BS then they don't count.
Well, coach and former players and BS...so I guess, 'homers.' All I know is a lot of smart people seem to agree the US has a 'chance' against Portugal and can get 'points' from Ghana...and whenever smart people start to agree on stuff, I generally put money the other direction. There are always surprises in these tournaments in the early going, so I hope the US does shock and awe the world and breaks out, but it seems more likely that Ghana with their punishing midfielders and tackling will find space on the break and simply physically dominate us the way they did Egypt and our youth team in the last YWC.
I would have agreed with you if you had said anything about 'chance' in the post of yours I quoted. I think even the most pessimistic of us would say we have a 'chance', but I still don't see a lot of smart people saying they expect us to beat Ghana, Portugal and tie Germany.
If my son was called athletic, he and I would take it as a compliment. If my team was said to have flair, it would make me proud...mathematically precise with passing-ditto. All of these are compliments, they imply a gift of the body and the mind of men. Michael Essien is one of my favorite players. Being mildly observant, I watch him overpower and run by opponents. Sully Muntari is beautifully athletic, witness his speed and body control in being the reason for both AC Milan goals Tuesday. Again being mildly observant, I notice in the games I watch, Ghana attacking, with power, speed, body control and athletic movement. They do not park it, they do not wait, they do not slow it down. They are wonderfully athletic and have the intelligence to use that skill and gift. Moderating my observations, damning my opinion because I dared to compliment these Africans as athletic suggests a longing for racism and bigotry in thee, not me. Look for bigotry in every word and you will find it. All of those secret meanings will be what you hold dear.
I don't see these matchups as one-side either way. Ghana and the USA are very similar. On paper, both have less decorated personnel than the elite international teams, as both feature a mix of Europe-based players along with domestic players from leagues that are generally improving yet lesser regarded. Both have a few players that are very technical, but across the board are generally less technical than elite teams. However, both are more athletic, in terms of size and speed. Ghana is probably slightly more dynamic than the USA, and to overcome that the USA will have to be more organized than Ghana. When USA failed to stay organized for 90 minutes in the past 2 WC matchups, they were punished, and the situation hasn't appreciably changed. However, those were both very tight matches and could go either way this time around. I actually think both USA and Ghana are unfortunate matchups for Portugal, considering the potential alternative draws. Both have the assets, in terms of fitness and athleticism, to press Portugal effectively, which will be an especially difficult challenge for Portugal in the Brazilian climate. Both offer a significant set-piece threat. Portugal will be looking to take advantage of their technical advantage to enable possession and to get the ball to their playmakers in space, especially C.Ronaldo. If both Ghana and the USA attempt to negate this possession advantage by utilizing five midfielders, as expected, then these games will be very tight and low-scoring, and if Portugal gives up one or more set piece goal to either could be in trouble. Fascinating group.
USA is going to have 6-8 MLSers. That's about a third of all players. Ghana is unlikely to have any from their local league, but a few from the South African Premier. Probably two or three, all subs unlikely to play. USA has several guys who play in Europe but not in top leagues. Ghana has several players riding pine in top leagues.
The idea that Ghana has a personnel advantage certainly seems to be the conventional wisdom, but let's examine it and see. Here is a look at Ghana's WC Qualifying Roster - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana_national_football_team For the purposes of this discussion, let's define - domestic leagues as tier 3 (although I think MLS is better than Ghana's domestic league) - Big 4 (Spain, Germany, England, and Italy) leagues plus Champions League clubs as tier 1 - teams in between (Mexico, mid-tier European clubs) as tier 2. Both sides have 24 listed in this comparison, as Ghana used 24 over the 2 legs of their Egypt home-and-home, which is the list I used for this analysis. At GK, Ghana has 1 tier 2 player and 2 tier 3 players. At D, Ghana has 4 tier 3, 3 tier 2, and 1 tier 1 player. (and the tier 2 teams are a real stretch to be considered above MLS - lower table Portuguese, lower table Turkish, and Ukrainian) At M, Ghana is strong, with 7 tier 1 players. At F, Ghana has 3 tier 1 players and 3 tier 2 players. Using the most recent credible prediction from the 23 tickets to Brazil thread: At GK, USA has 1 tier 3 player (Rimando) and 2 tier 1 players (Howard, Guzan) At D, USA has 3 tier 1 players (Evans, Besler, Gonzalez), 1 tier 2 player (Beasley) 4 tier 1 players (Cameron, Fabian Johnson, Chandler, and Brooks) At M, USA has 2 tier 3 player (Donovan and Zusi), 2 tier 2 players (Bedoya, Diskerud), 5 tier 1 players (Bradley, Jones, Dempsey [loan], Kljestan, and Shea) At F, USA has 1 tier 3 player (EJ), 2 tier 2 players (AJ and Boyd), and 1 tier 1 player (Altidore) Overall, Ghana has 11 tier 1 players and USA has 12 tier 1 players. Ghana has 7 tier 2 players and USA has 5 tier 2 players. Ghana has 6 tier 3 players vs 7 for USA. That really looks pretty balanced to me. Especially when you consider MLS is probably much stronger than the tier 1 teams on the Ghana side and based on that seems to have a deeper roster overall. However, Ghana clearly has an advantage at the top end, with 3 players that are regular contributors on elite European teams (Muntari, Asamoah, and Essien) while the USA doesn't have any players on rosters of clubs that might be considered elite (Jones and Bradley might be considered the closest to that standard). Interestingly, all five of those players are defensively-minded central midfielders that typically cover a lot of range - the central midfield battle is going to be intense. USA clearly has a GK advantage. Ghana clearly has a midfield advantage. Interestingly, both teams have a major star that opted out of Europe (Donovan and Gyan). These teams are pretty similar - Ghana is probably a little more dynamic and athletic in addition to possessing a little more technical quality in the first XI, while USA is probably more organized, which probably explains why the USA has higher rankings on elo and FIFA rankings despite the minor deficits previously referenced. I stand by the analysis that the USA-Ghana game is a toss-up and also that both of these teams are going to push Portugal hard.
Extending this comparison, to Portugal, utilizing the roster from their qualifying game vs. Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal_national_football_team), they have 21 tier 1 players and 2 tier 2 players (and could easily field a team of all tier 1 players based on their player pool). However, the reasons I think Ghana and USA are relatively undesirable matchups for them are that both are powerful teams which can be effective on set pieces and both have the personnel at central midfield to deny Moutinho time and space in the middle (given the right tactics). If USA and Ghana can deny both central possession and penetration from the wings into the final third, and thereby limit Portugal to crosses from the outside, they will have their opportunities on the counter and set-pieces. I also think both USA and Ghana will deal with the Brazilian humidity more easily than Portugal, but in general I think this angle is being overplayed and will only be a small factor, maybe late in the games, during the group stage. [It could be a bigger factor in knockout rounds, considering more games will have taken a toll on the players legs and also extra time will come into play.] Portugal is the clear #2 in the group, based on personnel analysis, but if Ghana and the USA employ the right tactics (probably five mids) and commit to staying organized they will be difficult opponents for Portugal and given a break or two could take points from them.
One other thought. A lot has been made of Ghana's lopsided defeat of Egypt in CAF WC qualifying. This is pretty deceiving, I think. Only a handful of the Egypt players were getting regular club games of any kind due to the political instability. Yes, Egypt was undefeated in the previous round, but the opponents were Guinea, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique. [Sidenote, looking back, Bob Bradley really did a great job with that team, given the circumstances] If you look at round 2, Zambia gave Egypt a run for their money in round 2 group play. Zambia was leading the group until the final 2 games. Ghana is a formidable team, but I think some folks are making them out to be world-beaters based on the previous experiences USA has had with them when they really are not. Anyone who watched USA away vs Honduras or Costa Rica and Ghana away vs. Zambia wouldn't be too scared of either one of us. They are a good team with the potential to play with any team in the world when on their game, but not a consistently great team. Kind of like us.
You're using the list for the return game, when they were already ahead 6-1. For the first game, they called their #1 keeper, Kingson, from the Cypriot league. That'd qualify him as a Tier 2 guy, so they have 2 tier 2 plus 1 tier 3. For the second leg versus Egypt they didn't call Boye (Rennes), Mensah (Evian), Vorsah (Red Bull), so they have 2 players in Ligue 1 (that's like Tier 1.5) and the rest are Tier 2, except for Afful, who plays in the Tunisian league (Tier 3, I guess). I'd say 5 Tier 1 and 2 Tier 2 in midfield (Russian League and Championship don't qualify as Tier 1, right?); although if they call Derek Boateng, and Annan, it'll be 7 Tier 1 players, indeed. I think they'll take 8, with the last spot going to Mubarak (Tier 2). With 8 defenders and 8 midfielders, they'll be taking 4 forwards, and that's their weak spot. Since Gyan (Tier 3) is going, the other three forwards will be Tier 2. Evans, Besler and Gonzo are Tier 3, local league. Chandler and Brooks are still in the air, but let's say they go. So that is: Goalkeepers: Ghana 2*2 + 1*3 = 7; USA 2*1 + 1*3 = 5. USA wins (smaller number = better) Defense: Ghana 1*1 + 6*2 + 1*3 = 16; USA = 4*1 + 1*2 + 3*3 = 15. Quite even, USA wins slightly. Belgium league is not Tier 1 but Tier 2. I don't see Shea going, guy is not playing at all. Dempsey I'd count as Tier 3, at least right now. Since you have 8 defenders and 4 forwards, can't have 9 midfielders, so I'll just take Shea out. Midfield: Ghana = 7*1 = 7; USA = 3*3 + 3*2 + 2*1 = 17. Ghana has a strong advantage here. Wait, wasn't Mexico Tier 2? USA has 3 Tier 2 and 1 Tier 1. Forwards: USA 3*2 + 1*1 = 7; Ghana 1*3 + 3*2 = 9. USA holds the advantage. You're getting a bit confused there. Tier 1 were the Top Leagues (you also include Champions League teams even from smaller leagues; I don't, though, but the only source of conflict there is Kljestan, and even if we bump him to Tier 1, the advantage for Ghana is still very big in midfield), Tier 2 the medium leagues (under the Big 4 in Europe, and Liga MX), and Tier 3 is actually the local leagues --that in the case of Ghana included the African leagues in general, since I don't see them taking anyone from the Ghanaian league, but one guy from the Tunisian and maybe a couple from the South African league (also, I've considered the Emirates a Tier 3 league). I have a total for Ghana of 39, and 44 for the USA. Small advantage to the African team.
Agree completely. Any insight as to how Bradley did as a whole against Milan? I did not get to see the game...