In all honesty the biggest thing I took from the game was just how important it is to have a more defensive minded CDM next to Bradley. He's borderline world class when he's allowed to roam free. The more I think about it I just don't see how Klinsman can continue to keep starting Jones next to Bradley. At this point I think it's an either/or, not an "and". I wish Beckerman was blessed with a bit more athleticism because he's strong in every other facet of the position. His IQ, anticipation, and dedication to defense are the ideal pairing for a guy like Bradley. That being said, I'd play Edu there...he's got similar qualities with a heck of a lot more athleticism. But I'll go on record as saying I won't be upset if Beckerman starts in the WC, if nothing else for the opportunities it opens up for Bradley. God knows we're a much better and more dangerous team when Bradley is covering a bunch of turf.
borderline!? beckerman just seems to be a polarizing player. people seem to see him as either starting or staying home this summer.
I want names, those people need to go on my ignore list, reading too much stupidity can be bad for my health. Edit: Nevermind, you said Beckerman and not Bradley, ok I can see the argument there.
To understand what happened I think we need to first look at what our opponent did differently to change the game dynamics. This was the focus of my post in the general thread: I think a big part of it, not all of it but at at least a significant part, was that Mexico completely shifted their game plan at half time and pressed us high rather than allowing us to just possess and build up from the back like they did in the first half. Herrera spoke about it in his post game comments and even one of the ESPN crew pointed it out in the second half. They (Mexico) realized that they were getting dismantled with the approach of falling back in the first half so they shifted to pressing our back line and mids in our own third in the 2nd. It was a completely logical change for them and unfortunately for us it really jammed us up. Their pressure hampered our connections out of the back and in our midfield causing turnovers, errors and more chances for them. It also had the added benefit (for Mexico) of bottling Bradley up and forcing him to play back. They basically didn't do any of that in the first half which is why the two halves looked so different for us. I think the most important question is why our team reacted so poorly to the pressure and what are we going to do about it? I think it would be fair to assume that WC opponent scouts viewing that game walked away with one major point about us: Doesn't handle high pressing well. Itemizing all of our players individual weaknesses and errors might be worthwhile, but it's also a case of missing the forest for the trees. Our defensive weaknesses and link up weaknesses didn't really emerge in that game until Mexico decided to call us out and test our grace under pressure in the 2nd. If our team doesn't practice and drill for how to play against a high pressing opponent its going to get really ugly for us in Brazil. In my opinion we need to be as prepared for that moreso than simply how to play a possession game when the other team is content to allow it. In some ways the second half reminded me of how Belgium played us in our last friendly against them. They were all over us in our final third from minute one and we absolutely crumbled. To be fair it was a friendly and the focus of the staff may have been on individual player selections rather than the collective organization, but I believe that no matter who gets selected we will be playing with a talent defecit and suspect backline in Brazil, and the only way we can overcome that is by trying to be way more prepared than our opponents. Recognizing what our opponent is trying to do or is doing and adjusting to that will be as important as simply knowing our players strengths and weaknesses.
Count me as one who thinks he should be on the 23 as a bench player. Anybody remember France? His lack of athleticism was his undoing in that game. We've got Ghana, Germany and Portugal on the schedule. I can't think of a better CM in the pool right now not named Bradley, but there's just no way that he can start and play 60+ minutes against those kinds of horses and expect to be effective.
Edu and Rasta did a great job against France. The single goal to the extent it could be pinned on anyone was on Goodsen. Rasta if he is playing his customary role in front of the backline and has appropriate midfield help is fine. That being said he would be a reserve player for the most part at the Cup.
I watched that game recently and Beckerman was behind the play the entire match. It was obvious. That they kept it close was largely a testament to his playing within himself and not giving away anything for free, but he was constantly on the back foot and not able to assert himself on the game at all. In other words, he was not up to the level of competition. Now, nearly two-and-a-half years later at age 32, that's not about to change for the better.
Mexico was down 2-0 at the half. They then upped the tempo, placed more bodies around the center circle, and pressed a little more. Normal stuff as happens in any game under the circumstances. How many times after past matches has it been pointed out that yes we had decent possession and generated some chances but that was after the other team having taken the lead sat back? Shoe was on the other foot this time. Mexico was happy they could hang with us and get out with a draw. Times have changed. The first goal came through a bad decision by Beltran to try to dribble into box when the team is up 2-0. Is Beltran going to Brasil? No worries. The second goal came after the subs. If an actual grownup is playing in Green's position the 2nd goal doesn't happen. Is Green getting big minutes if any in Brasil? No worries.
I would expect us to be on the back foot against France. It's how you play when on the back foot that matters. People need to be realistic about the talent of the US pool. With Williams and Shea as flankers the team did well in France against France.
I wonder if we still would have lost the Croatia game with Bradley in the lineup. He is the heart of the team.
I also listen to Herrera's interview and he said that "his players did not responded to the USA game play of more importance", meaning, Mexico players thought we where going to let them do what they want and so were they. Remember when Mexico was complaining because of our tougher man coverage? In the second half they came out playing like us, with more intensity, I though we continued to move the ball well, of course that as well as in the first half. Our undoing was a couple of plays where mental lapses cost us. Even in the second half, I thought we had better changes to score than they did after it was 2-2. Once Beltran was replaced we attacked better. Beltran didn't make many mistakes but he is a limited defender, He hardly attacks because he knows that he doesn't have the wheels to recover, he needs way more help from inside and the right mid.
In other words, Jurgen was outcoached in the 2nd half. We've given him credit several times for making the correct 2nd subs and/or adjustments. This game produced the opposite result. I know... it was a friendly, but so was the win at Azteca.
Agreed. My post was in part a dig at the preparation and adjustments, which in my opinion is primarily on the staff, but others have pointed out that it was chaotic in the 2nd with all the personnel changes and it was mostly about seeing who would sink or swim. I can concede some of that, but I firmly believe that only an unbelievable level of preparation and team cohesiveness are going to get us out of our group, no matter who we select. A possible silver lining to all of this could be that the 2nd half really showed how questionable our back line situation truly is. We kind of knew this already, but it raised the heat on possibly making some critical changes back there.
You're right that soccer's not basketball--in soccer, there's not such a bright line against the moving pick, making picks easier to pull off, not harder. You're right that it occurs much less in the NBA, but it's because most players at that level have mind-blowing quickness, and they'll beat the defender to the spot. Size has little to do with it--you don't have to be huge to pick a player because you don't have to stop him, you just have to slow him down, and only a little. That last point is the emphasis here. You don't have to stop Gonzalez to get Marquez a look at the goal, you just have to slow him down. It's not a revelation to say that Gonzalez doesn't have the first step of most NBA players (few central defenders do--that move would just as easily work on, let's say, Gary Cahill, if no one was helping him), so the idea that he's either going to fight through or run around that pick carries a note of the absurd: that's just the point of the pick in the first place, to make Gonzalez do that. The commonality between the sports is, if it was so easy for the picked player to stop, no one would try it. The guy who can make the play without impedance is Beckerman. He's the guy who can actually challenge the shot, not just make it look all right for appearance's sake. And that's not meant as a broad knock on the guy, because I thought he was alright in the flow of play. And even on that corner, you have to drill that switching instinct into being, which is a lot more likely in basketball, since it will come up over and over again in practice. In soccer, that's less likely, because it's a much more niche situation. I'm just making the simple point of who has the realistic play on that ball, which is Beckerman. There's probably also a tactical problem in that there's a 2v2 isolation in the first place, with no one else close enough to come and help. In soccer, it's unnecessary to leave the far side that sparsely covered (though it wasn't as bad as Mexico's tactics creating a 1v1 on the far post for Bradley's goal).
After a second viewing of the game, I have to say that I'm not very worried. The first has been discussed ad naseum. I will have to say though that it looked to me like a definite impedance and therefore a foul. A more experienced ref might call this. In the second, Beckerman wasn't aggressive enough to block the first shot that went off the post. On jut reviewing the game the CB pairing looked quite competent. No glaring mistake that I could find. In the end, I couldn't see anything that suggest that this CB pairing will be worse than previous WC's.
Agree and I think the difference between first and second halves had to do with klinsi trying tactics in the first and personnel in the second, combined with the fact that Mexico changed tactics to stop Bradley.
I don't think Beckerman starts, but he's a great player to have on the bench. I'd have him ready to spell Jones when we are leading Ghana 1-0 or need to preserve a draw with Portugal and Jones is sitting on a yellow and/or gassed from running up and down the field for 60+ minutes. That's Beckerman's role for me.
In soccer picks, whether moving or stationary, are "obstruction" and against the rules. That said, they are rarely called. In any case, Jurgen Klinsmann confirmed that Gonzalez was 100% at fault, stating in his weekly podcast that "Omar lost his mark there" (at 1:52): http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2014/04/11/13/48/140411-road-to-the-roster-ep5
Perhaps a junior high basketball coach should be consulted to teach these players how to deal with picks. It's amazing how often they seem to work.
Yes, both of these sentences are true, which is why I phrased the statement that there is no 'bright line' between the two. Both are theoretically illegal, both are allowed in practical terms. Which is the most untenable position one could possibly have taken about it--unless one hasn't seen the replay. It is totally visually obvious that Gonzalez knew where his man was the whole time, and is trying to get to him. He never 'lost' anything, to believe that one requires distrusting one's own eyes.
So your argument basically boils down to: either Jurgen Klinsmann or Stan Collins doesn't know shit about soccer. Hmmm, I wonder which it is...
All Klinsmann said was "Omar lost his mark there..... things happen like that." That's it. Nothing else. No discussion on who's at fault but rather just a sort of verbal shrug.
I don't know. If so, then he mis-expressed himself. It is a big interpretive leap to go from the observation that a guy's mark scored to 'he lost his mark.' Not nearly so big as the interpretive leap it takes to go from 'he's clearly got that wrong' to 'I know more about soccer than him', but then again, few interpretive leaps in the history of interpretive leaps are as absurd as that one.
I watched the second half again today, and the thing that struck me was how our subs radically changed the defensive understanding of our team shape. Within a 5 minute span, we swapped: Besler -> Goodson Zusi -> Donovan Davis -> Green Wondolowski -> Johnson In my opinion, we didn't improve tackling ability anywhere in the bunch, and it also looked like our shape shifted. It appeared Johnson played alone up top for a while, but Dempsey eventually drifted up more, Donovan played narrow on the right, and Green looked unsure of his positioning. Then, with the final two subs, it appeared Green pushed wider and Yedlin provided the width on the right. On the flip side, it sometimes looked like Bradley, Edu, and Donovan were all in the central zone, but unsure of their depth. This led to some easy interplay from Mexico, particularly in a 3-5-2. Good news is that, obviously, this massive personnel and tactical shift can't happen in the World Cup. Klinsmann's goal should be to take a page out of Mourinho's playbook, and have a Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C locked down from a tactical perspective. The base 4-2-3-1 will be one of them, a two striker formation (some 4-4-2, likely the diamond), and - going out on a limb here - a "we need a goal now!" formation (our 4-2-3-1 can get defensive quickly, so not worried about that one.)