USMNT "B" teams and the world

[gnatfan]

After having attended the USMNT-Colombia friendly and having read much of the post game comments I wanted to make a couple of observations and have the BS community respond.

First, I think the whole "friendly" notion has a built in excuse for when a team performs poorly. They don't play enough together, experimental line-up, teams star(s) players not available, regular teams not in season (fitness issues), regular teams in session (fatigue), jet lag, hang nail etc.

Also, one certainly should not look at a single friendly and make any great generalizations from them (BS posters are, of course, excluded from this rule). I think it is only over time that you should begin to draw conclusions about certain players and combination of folks. Friendly games are almost by definition experimental and are played for multiple purposes.

That having been said, I wonder about the quality of the opponents which the USMNT face during these games. Not the "actual" national team from said country, but rather the "B"-pool players who our team faces. Following World Cup 2002, I felt that the world was finally starting to realize how good the USMNT was becoming--we were coming of age. But I still get the sense that many of the soccer "powers" believe they will get a positive result with a minimum of effort.

And if these same countries think we are sending anything less than most our "A" players, we get a team which resembles the one which showed up to play us in Fullerton.

Perhaps these countries will only get it after we beat them one by one. But, in all honesty, I could never see USSF agreeing to play a friendly and not sending a team that was as competitive as we could field at the time. (This thought, of course, excludes labor disagreements and pre-1990 teams :) ) I am also not trying to single out Colombia in any way. I know USSF was desperate to schedule a few games prior to Mexico.


Thoughts?

[TAKK]

Yes, and just keep beating them. That's all that we can do.

BTW - Soccer is an extremely popular sport because there are built in excuses everywhere (refs, linesman, weather conditions, injured players, field condition, player selection, unavailable players, only a friendly, not our full team, line ups, coach, travel, heat, snow, rain, mud, wrong boots, X Files, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc................) and even a dominated team can still lose 1 or 2 nothing and make it look respectable on the scoreboard. Salvaged pride and the hope of one or two breaks in the future and it's an even match.

Prime example. In the after game thread someone said it could have easily ended 2-2. Know what? That can be said about 90% of all soccer games played today. That's the hook with fans. Theirs the hope.
Very little difference between winning and losing except for that cutting edge. We are getting it. 10 years ago we were the ones saying, "It could have easily beeen 2-2," in a losing effort of course.

Scew the world, screw the arrogant deluded know it all snob foreigners (& Yanks too, way to many here who are brainwashed about most overseas play, teams, and leagues - very sad).

Worry about what we can do. Keep winning and keep building the game here. To hell with the patronizing deluded fools. We don't need their approval anymore...we can play. Revel in it...don't over hype our players...and strive to improve. Ever year.

Oh yeah...keep winning.

[RUUDVN]

[QUOTE=TAKK]Yes, and just keep beating them. That's all that we can do.....QUOTE]

and extend it's unbeaten F streak.

[MelH]

...there are built in excuses everywhere (refs, linesman, weather conditions, injured players, field condition, player selection, unavailable players, only a friendly, not our full team, line ups, coach, travel, heat, snow, rain, mud, wrong boots, X Files, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc................

I wonder what excuses will be in the Monday morning Mexico City Daily Herald on March 28th? :D

[gnatfan]

I wonder what excuses will be in the Monday morning Mexico City Daily Herald on March 28th? :D


I can see it now after we spank them 2-0

pobrecita Mexico --so close to the United States, so far from God.

[SoccerFreak]

Prime example. In the after game thread someone said it could have easily ended 2-2. Know what? That can be said about 90% of all soccer games played today. That's the hook with fans. Theirs the hope.
Very little difference between winning and losing except for that cutting edge. We are getting it. 10 years ago we were the ones saying, "It could have easily beeen 2-2," in a losing effort of course.



We're still saying stuff like this now. The Panama game when we tied it 1-1, the excuse that was used the most by fans was, "we could have easily won if we were playing on a better pitch".

The only difference is that we haven't played a game that badly in a while, which means we haven't been complaining about bad pitches, bad officiating, diving or hacking as much.

We can make just as much excuses as the rest of them.

[TAKK]

We're still saying stuff like this now. The Panama game when we tied it 1-1, the excuse that was used the most by fans was, "we could have easily won if we were playing on a better pitch".


If you read these boards you know it wasn't me. That's for sure.

I will go with one point the apologists and excuse makers got right. No matter how dumb ass lucky Arena got for trashing that game by being an amateur coach that day (see minute 35 sub and no response by BA all match) we still got a freaking point.
Did we deserve it? Probably not, but we go the point. Better teams always seem to do this in soccer. Yes, I understand it's a very weak region but you gotta start where you live first before moving up.

The excuse making is now of a higher standard. It's for ties and lowly wins instead of loses. Even Brazil, with it's lofty expectations, is excuse central for poor performances by many loyalists. Fans can't help themselves.

I'd rather have the homers, nationalists and loyalists making excuses like they are now (for wins and ties) instead of for close loses (I had all of the 80's and early 90's for that - I'm not going back)

I must agree with you wholeheartedly however. It was pretty pathetic/nauseating at times in that post game Panama thread when the answer was simple.

Coach blew/did nothing to adjust to Pan sub.
Made it worse with subs of his own.
Many players chosen couldn't handle the physical conditions that day.
We had a bunch of Lucky Charms shoved up our....

Me gets the feeling that Clint Dempsey or Pablo will be on every roster from now on to be available for those conditions/physical environments. Live and learn...I hope.

[TAKK]

BTW - When I said don't make excuse in the original post I was hoping to enlighten, not implying that we don't.

Get better, win and when you lose, learn from it and shut the hell up about woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Let the English tell all of the hard luck excuse stories. They seem to actually revel in it.

[ursula]

Well what is the purpose of a friendly? Probably when they were first named (in England I suppose) a friendly was just an all-star game of two nations.

But that's not the way they are used now. The main national team events these days- the WC, WCQs, and some (not all) confederation tournaments are big business fueled by the fans to win games and beat their rivals. So for a national team coach who gets paid quite a bit to get his side to win those games a friendly is merely a game for figuring out how to do well in the main competitions his country is playing in. Usually it's the main competitions and tournaments that will be the judge of the coach: win or get fired.

For the national federations, friendlies can take on a money making aspect also as I think it will be especially for England this summer (more-so than the US since the US at least has some WCQs coming soon after while England does not. Of course the USSF won't say no to the money they get either ;) ).

Fans however can get caught up into thinking friendlies while they are happening are important in their own right- more important than the coaches think they are. For instance go over to the England board and hear them talking about the approach SGE takes to friendlies. (They aren't nearly exciting enough but somehow SGE must be taking the right approach to them as the team tends to pull through when the important games come along.) We USA fans can do the same thing if a friendly is boring like the Haiti game awhile back. Or we can go the opposite way as in our recent victories over Mexico which would look pretty meaningless if Mexico beats us later this month and particularly if they couple that with a tie or victory in C-bus.

Still most coaches look at friendlies as preparation matches with the added possibility to make some moola. but there are many ways to go about preparing for the big games and some of those ways are not too exciting to the fans in the stands. And I can see that that's how they should be viewed because 1) there aren't enough of them and 2) the ones we have aren't organized into any league type format between confederations so that we can definitively say that, for instance the US is even with England now if we beat them this summer. (The truth about England and the US is that neither side is very important to the other because we play our important games mostly with other teams.)

Well I'm rambling and if I haven't put you to sleep with this you must be on some powerful meth. :)

[Adam Zebrowski]

friendlies are all about preparing for matches which count...

taking results seriously in friendlies are dangerous to your health!!'

as to serious matches, teams play with a 100% committment, and taking a team apart is far more difficult ....

sure arena, got caught with a couple bad match-ups in panama, but what did he do at rfk...he learned his lesson....

show me a managerv who hasn't made mistakes, and I'll show you a manager who hasn't managed much...

you can examine INDIVIDUAL instances and make that the grand picture, or be more globalistic and say the BIG picture is REALLY the collectivity of matches...

in that sense, arena passes the acid test...

sure, criticize him...don't you think he was aware of the errors in panama city, a fading reyna with no d-mid help and a helpless vanney....

has it happened since then...

leatn your lesson move on...

and I suggest the emergence of dempsey speaks volumes for his willingness to blood the kids...not to mention EJ there too...

[SoulflyTribeFC]

I think the US-Colombia match really showed that MLS is producing better players than Colombia as of late. It's so hard to gauge the two teams when the top players for both teams are not present.

Look at the Mexico-Argentina game. Argentina had a bunch of young guys and Mexico had essentially its top team and they tied 1-1. You can spin that around so many ways, you'd get dizzy just thinking about it.

I don't think we should take it personally that Colombia didnt' call in their best players just as we shouldn't take it personally if England plays without a lot of their stars in May. We need to stick to our goals in terms of preperation, developing young guys and getting players to play within the team's system. If that comes against England B, so be it.

[TAKK]

show me a managerv who hasn't made mistakes, and I'll show you a manager who hasn't managed much...

...

Adam, I usuallly agree with your posts 100% and the above statement is true.

My complaint.

Look at the Pan post game thread. The most obvious glaring error brought up by virtually no one (sans me which I catch hell for of course). Mud, blame players, etc. Joke. Most were blind to it or ignored it.

Media...same thing.

As for BA, how do I know he knows he made a huge blunder? He sure as hell never admitted it and no one questioned him. I will assume nothing because I haven't heard him take responsibility for that stupidity and say it, and I'm seeing him make a lot of the same errors in away qualies so far (rosters, subs, in game tactics).

When I hear the recognition I will believe that he knows.

[eplkewell]

It doesn't matter if Bruce makes mistakes if we keep getting points. Also, with all managers, every good decision they make never gets praised because it seems so obvious (at least in hindsight).

[Adam Zebrowski]

arena rarely comments on anything except coach-speak...

his original line-up was very offensive, which we should applaud, attacking on the road isn't what arena usually does...

unfortunately, reyna needs defensive help, and that wasn't givem and vanney was a nightmare too...

so, arena has NOT repeated this line-up, inferring he learnt his lesson

[TAKK]

[QUOTE=eplkewell]It doesn't matter if Bruce makes mistakes if we keep getting points. QUOTE]

That is probably because the comp is so poor you can get away with it.

Against better...what happens then?

[TAKK]

arena rarely comments on anything except coach-speak...

his original line-up was very offensive, which we should applaud, attacking on the road isn't what arena usually does...

unfortunately, reyna needs defensive help, and that wasn't givem and vanney was a nightmare too...

so, arena has NOT repeated this line-up, inferring he learnt his lesson

Fair point. This still doesn't address his complete lack of adjustment for a very obvious tactical change in that game. Not nitpicking. Obvious. With several former Euro clients that day who still bust my chops about it. How can this guy coach in Europe? Go back to the game thread when that sub was made.

Will BA adjust to an obvious issue is the only post I made. Didn't, and never addressed it in the media and no one asked. Maybe he learned, but this flying under the radar thing is just plain bad. Especially something like that.

It reminds me of all of the people who say, "I'm honest with myself, I look in the mirror and evaluate myself every day."
These are exactly the people who are fooling themselves. Want honesty? Ask the people who live and work around you what they see. Let people outside the little circle evaluate with no pre conceptions or stake in the answer. That's how you get the hard honest answers. Most people don't like hearing those. People like the "fool yourself" answers.
That's how I interpret this.

Let's see the line ups and subs going forward. Let's see the in game tactical changes.

Players have to grow with more experience and skill. We expect that. I expect the same from my coach.

Not thrilled with away qualies.

BTW - Applauded his initial tactics in Pan. His intial game plans and strategy are always excellent. It's as the match goes on I've seen issues.

[Adam Zebrowski]

perhaps send arena to a big euro league where he can match wits over a 34 match schedule...

on the whole, arena has arisen above his peers here in the states, so he was never severely tested...

perhaps this lack of a challenge shows...

I just think arena got caught in panama....

in away matches, arena has shown a preference to kill the game, just control the tempo and avoid a loss....

and the play can get boringly ugly...

[TAKK]

perhaps send arena to a big euro league where he can match wits over a 34 match schedule...

on the whole, arena has arisen above his peers here in the states, so he was never severely tested...

perhaps this lack of a challenge shows...

I just think arena got caught in panama....

in away matches, arena has shown a preference to kill the game, just control the tempo and avoid a loss....

and the play can get boringly ugly...


Again fair point. Over 34 matches he might be a completely different manager.

Maybe this is where i have issues with Da Bruce.
Adam I have followed this team since the 70's so I understand how tough qualies are, etc, etc. Wanted to get that stuff out of the way.

I think he has been too cautious in squad selection (Grenada, Jamaica opener especially), has managed his subs poorly (T&T - Pan) and his game day rosters are curious at times. I used to think CONCACAF was better. I've completely reversed my thinking. Some teams get better (Pan, Guat) while some get worse (El Sal, Jam). I think there is only so many resources and people these countries have.

The US on the other hand is on an upward curve that has us right with Mexico. In 4 more years we will be controlling the ball just like them making a mockery of almost all of these teams.
I guess I think BA gives these teams too much credit now. I understand last cycle 100% and he did great with what he had. I think we have improved so greatly that he can be less cautious and early on should have tried a couple of more guys under thirty. Just a couple.

Since I want us to improve I want the talent o tplay and I want the coach to start growing with the talent. Tactical changes and subs (who and when) to me are the biggest indictaors of tactical ability for a coach.

I think the Geritol crew is gone so that issue is solved. I want to see improvements in the other areas. Against better squads there is no more sneaking up. It will be a big part of any match. I wnat bettet than the away qualies. I'm happy, but not satisfied.

My nature i guess. Opps, must get screaming ch..

[mtr8967]

Clearly everybody in the region but the US and Mexico are small enough they're at the mercy of their gene pool. A hot generation and they rise to the top of the heap, but the next generation is weaker and they fall back. Mexico, on the other hand, has so many players they may have their ups and downs but they'll never be bad. Hopefully the US has improved it's youth development enough to be in the same boat.

TAKK, look at some of the slabs of beef managing in England - even at his worse Arena has to be better than a bunch of them. However, I can't see him getting the job. It sounds like manager selection is very hidebound.

[Parmigiano]

TAKK, look at some of the slabs of beef managing in England - even at his worse Arena has to be better than a bunch of them. However, I can't see him getting the job. It sounds like manager selection is very hidebound.

Exactly. There are some real losers coaching at the highest levels. And even those considered to be the very best coaches make their share of iditiotic blunders -- it's so common. (Anyone remember how Arrigo Sacchi, widely considered one of Europe's great coaches of the 1990s, subbed 9 of his starters for the Euro '98 match against the Czech Republic? Wanted to save them for Germany in the next match. Of course, the upstart Bohemians beat the arrogant Italians and made it all the way to the final....talk about stupid decisions.)

As for Bruce's in-game changes, well, there are examples of him making brilliant tactical substitutions at the very highest levels (WC finals). So let's not go overboard on a few perceived shortcomings at a lower level. He's gotten the job done while also managing to experiment -- which is a whole hell of a lot more than a lot of others coaches can claim.

All told, Bruce is a very good coach and would do fine in Europe, IMO. But he is unlikely to be given that chance.