Nutmeg
12 Jul 2004, 04:15 PM
A lot of US fans were pissed off at Dick Advocaat's postgame remarks after the US squirmed out of Amsterdam with a 1-0 loss. Despite the game's billing as a Friendly, the US came in with a posture that would make an outside observer think their place in the 2006 World Cup depended on getting a point away from home. Advocaat decided to call the USA out.
'We missed some sharpness tonight and performing against such conservative opponents didn't inspire us,' said Dutch coach Dick Advocaat. 'We were supposed to meet the Germans tonight and then we'd have had a match with enthusiasm and prestige.'
All's fair in love and soccer, and yesterday the US got some of their own medicine. Poland, despite the friendly label attached to this game, came in determined to line as many players as they possibly could behind the ball and suffocate the US attack. They bunkered. In some respects, it made the game difficult to watch at times. In other respects, it was exactly the type of game the US needed.
We learned a few lessons out on the field today, and those lessons will be particularly valuable as we head into World Cup Qualification against Jamaica, Panama, and El Salvador.
Lesson 1 - The box midfield isn't always the right formation
After we beat Mexico in Dallas, many fans were so enthused by the performance that assumptions were made that from now on, the US would line up with a boxed midfield. Two midfield players would be focused primarily on defense, two would be focused in the attack. It's a great tactic against a team like Mexico, a team that for decades now has built their entire system around possessing the soccer ball.
But against opponents that are not interested in possession, like Poland, does having two dedicated defensive minded midfielders make sense? I don't think it does. The US was much more dangerous after both Mastroeni and Zavagnin had been subbed out of the game, and they were no more susceptible to Polish attacks.
When our opponents set out to bunker in World Cup Qualification, we cannot use two spots on defensive midfielders. The "box," in those scenarios, will not be the right tool for the job.
Lesson 2 - Finishing isn't just a forward's job
Quick trivia question - who was the US' scoring leader in the last WCQ cycle? Who is leading the US in scoring this time around? Here's a hint - neither player lines up as a forward.
So often we come down hard when guys like McBride and Wolff squander opportunities in front of the goal. I think that's fair. Their primary responsibility is to put shots away. But I am getting tired of watching US midfielders and defenders shank shots entirely, or completely lose their composure in front of the goal.
That means you, Claudio. Against Grenada, you had a few shots in dangerous situations that you trickled to the goalkeeper's feet or simply shanked. That means you, too, Armas. Early in the game at Grenada, you had two shots where the goalkeeper was taken out of the play snuffed out because there was no attempt to place those shots. Convey, well, nevermind. And even you, Landon, need to rediscover your finishing touch. But at least you're making the keeper make saves, which is more than everybody but DaMarcus can say this year.
This isn't Major League Soccer. The real chances you have at scoring in a game come in significantly smaller numbers. When you get them, regardless of what your position is on the field, you have to put those shots away. If a player has shown, repeatedly, that they aren't capable of finishing for the US, then I strongly question that players' place on the field.
Lesson 3 - Wider is better
It's not just a marketing slogan for the Pontiac Grand Suck. When the US lines up against opponents who shell up defensively, there is a much stronger likelihood that we can break those teams down out wide than we will down the middle. If you watched Euro2004, you saw how the best teams in that tournament were often also the best at getting wide.
The responsibility to get wide comes down to four or five players. Your left and right-sided midfielders, whether or not they line up as "wingers," are obviously the first two. The second two should be your left and right fullbacks. Cherundolo has been pretty good at getting wide and serving crosses. See DaMarcus' header goal against Grenada for evidence. Convey hasn't been as effective. He - or somebody - needs to be better on the left side.
The 5th player should be at least one of the forwards. This is where I think Wolff's game is still not where it was pre-injury. We need a forward who can occasionally get wide and break down defenders in 1v1 situations through speed, ability on the dribble, or both of the above.
Basic soccer teaches you that as you get closer to the touch lines, you find yourself more and more isolated against defenders in 1v1 situations. When teams bunker, breaking them down anywhere is a very tough task. The middle is often so clogged, though, that it's nearly impossible.
Beating teams wide requires that you have players with the right combination of speed, dribbling skill, and crossing ability.
Lesson 4 - No sleep for the weary, or bored
The US defense so dominated Poland for much of the game that I think three players simply let themselves slip mentally. Pope, Bocanegra, and Howard - all who should know better - dropped the ball and let in a soft goal. Pope had a questionable backpass. Bocanegra had an even more suspect backheel, no-look clearance into the middle of the box, and Howard simply wasn't quick enough to react on a secondary cross and as a result dropped the ball.
In its entirety, that sequence took less than 10 seconds. That's it. That was all Poland needed to go up 1-0. Sometimes the most difficult challenge for defenders and goalkeepers when going against a bunkered team is to mentally stay on top of the game. Let yourselves drift for even a few seconds, and it can be costly.
Lesson 5 - Free is a very good price
Against both Mexico and Poland, scoring came down to corner kicks. Against Grenada, we had more chances at free kicks than I could count. I think that we'll see our share in WCQ as well. We have to be better.
We need players who can put dangerous shots on frame. Clint Mathis is one of those players. We need guys who can serve in dangerous crosses, and we need targets who can finish those crosses.
I don't think any US fan has been satisfied with our set pieces this year. I don't see how they could be. The US needs to be sharper. They either need more practice, or they need better execution, or if they need more capable players. It could be a combination of all of the above.
Whatever the solution is, if I am Bruce Arena, this has now become one of my very top priorities. Every camp and every game in the next set of qualifiers, this becomes the part of the game that gets my priority. Players who can execute on free kicks and set pieces move up higher on the depth chart. Players who don't move down.
I really think that this is one area that is keeping us from becoming a dominant team in every game we play. Had we converted the pk, a couple of set pieces in very good spaces, or seen better service on our corners, Poland never would have had a shot in this game.
***
Despite all this, I don't think it was a bad game at all. In fact the US dominated play about 90% of the time. I suspect we'll do the same in our next set of qualifiers, especially at home. But we learned a few lessons about how hard breaking teams down can be, how there are times and situations for every player and formation, and how absolutely careful you always have to be defensively.
Hopefully those same mistakes don't show their heads again over the next few months. If the US works on them, we'll cruise through the next round. If we don't, qualification will be much more difficult than it needs to be.
'We missed some sharpness tonight and performing against such conservative opponents didn't inspire us,' said Dutch coach Dick Advocaat. 'We were supposed to meet the Germans tonight and then we'd have had a match with enthusiasm and prestige.'
All's fair in love and soccer, and yesterday the US got some of their own medicine. Poland, despite the friendly label attached to this game, came in determined to line as many players as they possibly could behind the ball and suffocate the US attack. They bunkered. In some respects, it made the game difficult to watch at times. In other respects, it was exactly the type of game the US needed.
We learned a few lessons out on the field today, and those lessons will be particularly valuable as we head into World Cup Qualification against Jamaica, Panama, and El Salvador.
Lesson 1 - The box midfield isn't always the right formation
After we beat Mexico in Dallas, many fans were so enthused by the performance that assumptions were made that from now on, the US would line up with a boxed midfield. Two midfield players would be focused primarily on defense, two would be focused in the attack. It's a great tactic against a team like Mexico, a team that for decades now has built their entire system around possessing the soccer ball.
But against opponents that are not interested in possession, like Poland, does having two dedicated defensive minded midfielders make sense? I don't think it does. The US was much more dangerous after both Mastroeni and Zavagnin had been subbed out of the game, and they were no more susceptible to Polish attacks.
When our opponents set out to bunker in World Cup Qualification, we cannot use two spots on defensive midfielders. The "box," in those scenarios, will not be the right tool for the job.
Lesson 2 - Finishing isn't just a forward's job
Quick trivia question - who was the US' scoring leader in the last WCQ cycle? Who is leading the US in scoring this time around? Here's a hint - neither player lines up as a forward.
So often we come down hard when guys like McBride and Wolff squander opportunities in front of the goal. I think that's fair. Their primary responsibility is to put shots away. But I am getting tired of watching US midfielders and defenders shank shots entirely, or completely lose their composure in front of the goal.
That means you, Claudio. Against Grenada, you had a few shots in dangerous situations that you trickled to the goalkeeper's feet or simply shanked. That means you, too, Armas. Early in the game at Grenada, you had two shots where the goalkeeper was taken out of the play snuffed out because there was no attempt to place those shots. Convey, well, nevermind. And even you, Landon, need to rediscover your finishing touch. But at least you're making the keeper make saves, which is more than everybody but DaMarcus can say this year.
This isn't Major League Soccer. The real chances you have at scoring in a game come in significantly smaller numbers. When you get them, regardless of what your position is on the field, you have to put those shots away. If a player has shown, repeatedly, that they aren't capable of finishing for the US, then I strongly question that players' place on the field.
Lesson 3 - Wider is better
It's not just a marketing slogan for the Pontiac Grand Suck. When the US lines up against opponents who shell up defensively, there is a much stronger likelihood that we can break those teams down out wide than we will down the middle. If you watched Euro2004, you saw how the best teams in that tournament were often also the best at getting wide.
The responsibility to get wide comes down to four or five players. Your left and right-sided midfielders, whether or not they line up as "wingers," are obviously the first two. The second two should be your left and right fullbacks. Cherundolo has been pretty good at getting wide and serving crosses. See DaMarcus' header goal against Grenada for evidence. Convey hasn't been as effective. He - or somebody - needs to be better on the left side.
The 5th player should be at least one of the forwards. This is where I think Wolff's game is still not where it was pre-injury. We need a forward who can occasionally get wide and break down defenders in 1v1 situations through speed, ability on the dribble, or both of the above.
Basic soccer teaches you that as you get closer to the touch lines, you find yourself more and more isolated against defenders in 1v1 situations. When teams bunker, breaking them down anywhere is a very tough task. The middle is often so clogged, though, that it's nearly impossible.
Beating teams wide requires that you have players with the right combination of speed, dribbling skill, and crossing ability.
Lesson 4 - No sleep for the weary, or bored
The US defense so dominated Poland for much of the game that I think three players simply let themselves slip mentally. Pope, Bocanegra, and Howard - all who should know better - dropped the ball and let in a soft goal. Pope had a questionable backpass. Bocanegra had an even more suspect backheel, no-look clearance into the middle of the box, and Howard simply wasn't quick enough to react on a secondary cross and as a result dropped the ball.
In its entirety, that sequence took less than 10 seconds. That's it. That was all Poland needed to go up 1-0. Sometimes the most difficult challenge for defenders and goalkeepers when going against a bunkered team is to mentally stay on top of the game. Let yourselves drift for even a few seconds, and it can be costly.
Lesson 5 - Free is a very good price
Against both Mexico and Poland, scoring came down to corner kicks. Against Grenada, we had more chances at free kicks than I could count. I think that we'll see our share in WCQ as well. We have to be better.
We need players who can put dangerous shots on frame. Clint Mathis is one of those players. We need guys who can serve in dangerous crosses, and we need targets who can finish those crosses.
I don't think any US fan has been satisfied with our set pieces this year. I don't see how they could be. The US needs to be sharper. They either need more practice, or they need better execution, or if they need more capable players. It could be a combination of all of the above.
Whatever the solution is, if I am Bruce Arena, this has now become one of my very top priorities. Every camp and every game in the next set of qualifiers, this becomes the part of the game that gets my priority. Players who can execute on free kicks and set pieces move up higher on the depth chart. Players who don't move down.
I really think that this is one area that is keeping us from becoming a dominant team in every game we play. Had we converted the pk, a couple of set pieces in very good spaces, or seen better service on our corners, Poland never would have had a shot in this game.
***
Despite all this, I don't think it was a bad game at all. In fact the US dominated play about 90% of the time. I suspect we'll do the same in our next set of qualifiers, especially at home. But we learned a few lessons about how hard breaking teams down can be, how there are times and situations for every player and formation, and how absolutely careful you always have to be defensively.
Hopefully those same mistakes don't show their heads again over the next few months. If the US works on them, we'll cruise through the next round. If we don't, qualification will be much more difficult than it needs to be.