USA vs. Canada Official Post Game thread [R]

DeRo missed a bending shot by a foot because no center mid closed him down. Timmy deflected a rocket that most of the time would have gone in against someone else. And then there was the flurry where he made several saves in a row.

We didn't get peppered but Canada had enough close calls to make me nervous. We dominated until we scored then we backed off a lot. Not what we should have done... we need to score in bunches to develop the ability we'll need against harder teams. We should have scored 4 or 5 if our attack was any good

we did counter against canada and it was wayyy slow to develop, it was a bad counter

which is my biggest criticism of him, he's a poacher who'll run fast when he gets a putative goal scoring opportunity but won't put that same passion into defending, want proof?

-- see Jonathan Spector against Brazil -Confed. Cup or

why Landon Donovan was played on the right side (Clint's normal side) against Canada when all our attack went up the right flank with Steve Cherundolo getting forward and Canada's speeding winger (simpson?#11) on the their left side

....and people say Adu doesn't play b/c of defense..... LMAO

While the game would have changed it certain shots had gone in, I think the USA still wins this game easily, because I really don't think they were trying very hard after they took the lead and especially after the second goal. Had Canada scored their intensity would likely have picked up and the game would have played out differently.

this. The game was not close.

The direct FIFA-rankings effects of Canada's laissez-faire attitude to scheduling friendlies, however, are pretty much negligible these days. (The effect on the team's cohesion of not having the team play together often enough is surely significant, but more difficult to quantify.) The indirect FIFA-rankings effects, however, linger; see long-winded historical perspective, below.

(I realize that scheduling friendlies can cost money, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to apportion blame between "fiscal conditions beyond Canada's control" and "effort in scheduling friendlies within Canada's control".)

Canada was in the 1998 hex, but finished last. Nevertheless, because they made the hex, their FIFA ranking was thus reasonable enough when it came time for the draw for the 2002 CONCACAF semifinals, and they were seeded fifth in the region, dispatching Cuba (though only 1-0 on aggregate) in a two-legged playoff. Then, for their two-out-of-four-teams-advance group, they drew #1 seed Mexico, Caribbean knockout winners Trinidad and Tobago, and Central American group winners Panama. Trinidad and Tobago was on fire in the summer of 2000, rattling off four straight shutout victories to secure advancement (including 1-0 at home over Mexico and two victories over Canada). With Mexico winning the other three of its first four games (including a victory over Canada in Azteca), Canada's goalless draw in Panama City in its second match was not enough to keep it from mathematical elimination, and Canada missed the 2002 hex.

Missing the hex once hurts your FIFA ranking for the next cycle, because you are not playing ten high-value World Cup qualifying games in the hex. Having a weaker FIFA ranking makes your draw for the next hex more difficult, so missing one hex hurts your chances of making the next hex.

Under the pre-2006-World-Cup FIFA ranking system, the best seven results of each twelve-month period (over the past eight years!) were averaged with the average results of each twelve-month period. So for maximum FIFA rankings impact, teams really needed to have seven positive results in every twelve-month period; Canada's infrequent friendlies may thus have really hurt when it came time for the 2006 CONCACAF semifinal draw in 2003. (In the pre-2006-World-Cup FIFA ranking system, a loss could still earn a few points, but draws and wins were obviously much better, so "positive results" means draws or wins.)

I haven't been able to discover exactly what rankings were used for the 2006 CONCACAF semifinal draw, but let's look at Canada's matches in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. Any time the USA scheduled a friendly and Canada didn't, I've noted the lost opportunity. Note that the key periods may be "May 1995 through April 1996", etc., so it's good to have seven positive results in every twelve-month period, not just the calendar years; for simplicity's sake, we don't go into that level of detail here.

1995: only 9 matches, 3 wins, 1 draw, 5 losses. No March friendly. No April friendly. Only four positive results.

1996: only 9 matches, 6 wins, 1 draw, 2 losses. No May friendly. Seven positive results; reasonably good (though another win would be nice, which is why a May friendly might have helped).

1997: only 10 matches, 1 win, 2 draws, 7 losses. No January friendlies. No February friendly. No June friendlies. Only three positive results.

1998: only 1 match. While it was a win, this is still horrible scheduling -- you're just throwing away bushels of FIFA ranking points. Canada withdrew (?!) from the Gold Cup, and failed to schedule friendlies in January, February, March, April, and November.

1999: only 10 matches, 5 wins, 2 draws, 3 losses. No January friendly. No Ferbruary friendlies. No November friendlies. Seven positive results; reasonably good (though two more wins would be nice, which is why more friendlies might have helped).

(1999 was the last year Canada played in a Gold Cup qualifier. In future years, they qualified automatically. Automatic qualification probably hurts Canada's FIFA ranking; more on that later.)

2000: 16 matches, 8 wins, 5 draws, 3 losses. Great year.

2001: only 6 matches, 1 win, 1 draw, 4 losses. No January friendly. No February friendly. No March friendly. No June friendly. No December friendly. A draw against Brazil in the Confederations Cup was great, but with only two positive results, still throwing away bushels of FIFA ranking points.

2002: only 7 matches, 3 wins, 2 draws, 2 losses. No February friendly. No March friendlies. No April friendlies. No November friendly. Only five positive results.

2003: only 9 matches, 2 wins, 7 losses. No May friendlies. Only two positive results.

So Canada was a top-12 seed for the 2006 CONCACAF semifinal draw, but not top-6. This left them the possibility of a brutal draw, which happened: Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Canada. Last place in their semifinal group, missed the 2006 hex.

In the post-2006-World-Cup FIFA ranking system, you only needed five results (positive or negative) in each twelve-month period over the past four years to keep from throwing away FIFA ranking points. More results could only improve your ranking if they were better than the average of the other results in that twelve-month period. This made it easier for Canada, but...

Let's look at the 2010 CONCACAF semifinal draw, which used the 16 May 2007 FIFA rankings. That means we're looking at Canada's results from 16 May 2003 through 15 May 2004 (20% weighting); 16 May 2004 through 15 May 2005 (30% weighting); 16 May 2005 through 15 May 2006 (50% weighting); and 16 May 2006 through 15 May 2007 (100% weighting).

16 May 2003 through 15 May 2004: 7 matches, good enough. 16 May 2004 through 15 May 2005: 11 matches, good enough. 16 May 2005 through 15 May 2006: 8 matches, good enough. Ah, but 16 May 2006 through 15 May 2007: 4 matches.

Playing 4 matches in a measured twelve-month period results in an automatic 0 for the fifth match. That was the 100% weighting period for the 16 May 2007 FIFA rankings, and the 100% weighting period is half of a team's ranking. So Canada threw away 10% of whatever result it could have earned in a friendly played any time between 16 May 2006 and 15 May 2007.

Canada had missed the 2006 hex, so they were trying to make up for the disadvantage of not getting the opportunity for results in those ten high-value World Cup qualifying games. The 2006 hex was USA, Mexico, Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, Guatemala, and Panama. But Guatemala had only gone 3W-2D-5L in the hex, and Trinidad and Tobago had only gone 5W-2D-5L in the hex and the AFC/CONCACAF playoff. Both teams had too many bad results in other games, despite Trindad and Tobago's World Cup draw against Sweden (worth 100 * 1 * 4.0 * 1.84 * 0.94 = 692, more than even a friendly win against the best team in the world would have been, 100 * 3 * 1.0 * 1.99 * 0.94 = 561). So Trinidad and Tobago had slipped to sixth in the CONCACAF FIFA rankings table, down at 463 points. Guatemala had slipped all the way to tenth, down at 363 points. Guatemala was replaced in the top six by Honduras, which had climbed to 542 ranking points, good enough for fourth.

(How did Honduras manage to climb that high? 3W-4D-1L in World Cup qualifying matches in 2004, including their two-match playoff against Netherlands Antilles; 3W-2D-0L in Gold Cup qualifying matches in 2005; 3W-1D-1L in Gold Cup matches in 2005; 1W-1D-1L in Gold Cup qualifying matches in 2007.)

Even if Canada had scheduled and won a friendly in late May 2006 against the best team in the world, it would only have been worth 561 points for their 16 May 2007 rankings, or 56 points more in their final ranking, thus 342 + 56 = 398. Good enough for ninth instead of eleventh, but still not quite top-6. But heck, you have to at least try! Winning, instead of losing, friendlies they played against Jamaica and Hungary might have just been enough, if they had also played (and won) just one more friendly.

So Canada was a top-12 seed for the 2010 CONCACAF semifinal draw, but not top-6. This left them the possibility of a brutal draw, and in fact they got the theoretically worst possible: they drew #1 seed Mexico, #4 seed Honduras, and #7 seed Jamaica. Last place in their semifinal group, missed the 2010 hex.

There is a cautionary tale here for the other two North American teams, Mexico and the USA. Should either team ever miss the hex, they would find it difficult to keep a top-6 seed for the CONCACAF semifinal draw in the next cycle. Not only would they lose out on the opportunity to rack up FIFA ranking points in the ten hex matches, but unlike the Caribbean and Central American teams, North American teams no longer compete in Gold Cup qualifying. So the Caribbean and Central American teams can rack up points in Gold Cup qualifying (at a 2.5 multiplier) while North American teams are struggling to rack up points in friendlies (at a 1.0 multiplier). Once you miss out on a top-6 seed, you can draw the #1, #4, and #7 seeds, just like Canada did -- and if the #4 seed (or even the #7 seed) is as hot as Honduras was in 2008, you're in deep trouble.

I've said it in previous threads, and I'll say it again: the North American teams should really have Gold Cup qualifying, for the good of their FIFA rankings. Draft Bermuda, which is not in the Caribbean, into the North American Gold Cup qualifying, and have the top three of the four teams qualify. Not only would it help with seeding for CONCACAF qualifiers, but it helps with the possibility of Mexico earning a World Cup seed again, or with the possibility of the USA earning a World Cup seed for the first time since 1930 (as opposed to being given a World Cup seed for hosting).

Canada has a long, long way to go before people get interested in Canadian soccer.

As a percent, we probably have many more soccer fans than the USA. But they're not Canadian fans, they are fans of England or Germany or Netherlands, etc. Fans of the country where their families come from.

You get EPL games on TV regularly because people want to watch them. The games by the Canadian National Team are often only available as PPV. Same with Serie A, at least in Toronto, where we have tons of Italian-Canadians: they're available on basic cable.

It's a younger country. Most people still have the hyphen, at least in what respects to soccer. A win by the NT doesn't produce any noise. England wins, you get a lot of people honking their horn and singing in pubs.

Undoubtedly. There are a ton of soccer fans in Canada. We saw them come out of the woodwork for the 07 U20 World Cup to watch games that were seemingly unwatchable. And of course, we're seeing the MLS attendances. I went up to Toronto some years ago for a friendly between Roma and Celtic. The Rogers Centre was rocking, the fans were passionate, and they were seemingly very knowledgeable about the game.

I had Canadian friends when I lived in upstate NY (very close to the Canadian border) who literally thought rooting for the Canadian national team was "uncool." People think the US has a problem with "Eurosnobs," but the problem is even more severe in Canada.

It just seems to me that if the Canadian national team starts to get some really good results, really challenges for a World Cup berth. etc.............the fans would come out in droves. They're a patriotic bunch. We see that in hockey. And really, the squad isn't "that far" away. They have some very talented players. However, the squad of very talented players is extremely thin. If they have to go to backups, the quality drops off a cliff. Maybe MLS will provide them with a solid base of "good" players to build the program with.

Absolutely. But in terms of soccer, Canadians do seem a bit more Eurosnobbish that we do. Which explains in part how they've gotten the shaft on their dual citizens more than just about anybody. And the fact that they just don't play enough matches explains their lack of coherence. They have some very good attackers, but their attack is not very good. Moving forward, Canada just seems to rely on their individual efforts and doesn't move as a team. Simpson, Jackson, and Gerba are good enough to beat some guys 1v1 and get a goal now-and-then, but without the support, it'll mostly be a case of catching a good team napping once in a while more than ever really dictating their will against an organized, coherent opponent.

And their player pool is thin to the point where there's some pretty exaggerated talent disparity even in the first XI. That's not unknown to us, where our LB is usually a much lesser player than the rest of the squad or is forced to play the role unnaturally, but that goes double for them.

It's part of the "multiculturalism" policy, as opposed to the American "melting pot."

In that game Celtic vs. Roma, you had in the stands not a lot of Canadians, but a lot of Italo-Canadians and Scottish-Canadians.

In a way, everybody is encouraged to stick to their own group. Hockey breaks that, and at times other sports (like, believe it or not, curling).

Not soccer though. Keep in mind that one of the reasons soccer is so huge across the planet is because it feeds on ethnic differences, though.

You get the same thing in the US with Hispanics though. I find that Canadians sort of have a romanticized idea of the "melting pot" when there is just as much multiculturalism issues in the US. You also have people that refer to themselves as Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans etc...

It wasn't our physical movement that was too slow, it was speed of thought and ball movement.

It seems like we always wait a beat and a half too long to pass to the open man and there's little collective understanding of the patterns of passes to play across the back or the midfield. We also wasted some of our counter opportunities with bad spacing/runs and decisions.

A bunch of guys get together for a week and you expect them to play like a perfect cohesive unit? Give it time.

yes ... next time you watch the US play - just count once a player receives the ball how quickly they release it ... a good squad (ala Spain) will typically receive the ball and get it moving immediately after the first or second touch .... they will not wait for the play to develop because their teammates were constantly moving in advance to be positioned. That is the primary way to reduce pressure under possession is NOT to wait long to get the ball moving for you. Make the ball do the work not your legs when you have possession. Having said that - we did this well for half the match against Canada - but there were stretches where we had possession and we just slowed the pace down and took our time deciding what the weather was, whether Howard had the right gloves on, how much we like our red jersey's etc. ... The men need to be trained to get the ball moving quickly and to be ready for each other .... that is why first touch, triangles and off the ball movement is so damn important.

Canada has the potential to become CONCACAF's #3, not only because of population and infrastructure but, being as it is that Canada has so many European immigrants and their descendants, soccer is already a part of the culture.

Definitely. Step #2 is a much-improved national team set-up, and related to that, to stop losing almost every last dual-national you guys have. Nobody wins them all, but Canada loses so many it's ridiculous. Probably related directly to the stuff mentioned above, and the fact that the national team set-up is notoriously cheap and rinky-dink.

Actually, I grew up in the USA but my nationality is French (because of my mom) and my dad is Argentine. I've been living in Canada for about 20 years though.

I want Canada to do better though, after so many years around here I feel quite the Canuck already (my wife is from Quebec, my kids are BCians).

It happens pretty much every game we play. It's just a part of our soccer culture. We have a hard time seeing that a pass will be a dead end or that A + B = C. We're starting to see more players who do recognize that, but until the vast majority of our XI see those things play will break down somewhere along the chain.

Who is John? http://www.ussoccer.com/Teams/US-Men/Player-Pool/2011-Player-Pool.aspx doesn't list anybody with that first or last name.

Our problem is we dont have a system of play. Bob Bradley puts too much emphasis on allowing his son to not only be the player who drops back and picks up the ball off of the defense but also be the player who is attacking which thus leaves Jones kind of kicking it in the middle not really making an impact. Also we have the problem with me kick ball hard Bocanegra backing up Dempsey on the left. If we were able to get Dempsey the ball more imagine how the game would change. Donovan has Cherundelo helping him out, who can we give Dempsey?

Yeah, Spain really sucked on less than a week PLUS a transatlantic flight

Bornstein!

Believe they're referring to George John, CB for FC Dallas. He was just called in to train with the Greek National team, but I believe had to skip due to an injury IIRC.

Yes, that's right, George John of FC Dallas.

Not Ramos.

Don't worry.

We'll win our next match 3-0 and everyone will go back to talking about how we'll meet and beat Mexico in the finals.