Compare USA and England

[Shaster]

I watched two England's games vs. Northern Ireland and Azebajan. So I watched US vs. Guatemala too for a comparision.

I used to think US has a simliar style as England and both teams are in same level, but I was totally wrong.

In England, it is much dynamic. Players such as Lampard, Gerard, Rooney, J. Cole, and A. Cole are pretty good with their feet and have no problems to attack even facing multiple defenders. Terry and Ferdinand have good feet skills, and Beckham isn't too bad. So only Neville and Owen didn't show too much. In Owen's case, he just may not in form.

Another thing is that England's shooting is much, much better. With lasers coming from multiple players.

For US, beside the 2nd half with Donovan, and sometimes Dempsey, and GAM's steps over, I rarely see US players attacking defense with their feet. What's wrong with our players? Maybe we just pretend to play one or two touches simple soccer that slow down our players ability. For example, in Donovan's case, before he was opennly being demanded by US coaches to attack more directly on the defense, anytime he is facing one defender, he just pull the ball back and pass a square or back pass. In Europe, most of attacking players will just go at the defenders. Sometime one, or two, even three. Of course, I will not use Maradona as an example to dribble a whole team over, but do you feel our players lacking this ability?

[dmike]

N.Ireland and Aze is like the Panama and T&T version of the CONCACAF. Their is no doubt England has great futbol stars, but they are way overhyped at times. Just like every World Cup, I expect them to underachieve.

[mdfc]

What stood out last night was our inability to put a shot on frame from above the box. Englands 4 mids [Gerrard, Lampard, Spice Boy & Joe Cole recently] all have the ability to drill a shot from distance. The most recent goal scored similiarly from the US was by Lewis at TNT, ironic of course because he plays in England.

Of course, for all the missed chances we had last night, England had about 100 vs. Aze.

[superdave]

What stood out last night was our inability to put a shot on frame from above the box. Englands 4 mids [Gerrard, Lampard, Spice Boy & Joe Cole recently] all have the ability to drill a shot from distance.
I've mentioned before that you could make a case that MLS' biggest weakness, the thing most strikingly different every August when the Euros crank up their leagues, is the weakness of MLS shots from 25 yards, and the lethality of such shots in Germany or England.

I don't know why that is. But it is.

[pupusa3000]

MLS coaches probably don't want to players to shoot from that far out because usually they SKY it over the crossbar. Its true, you see it in Europe, SA, and Mexico, and it would be great to see MLSers and NATs ambitious enough to not only try it but to get it on target consistently

[JBigjake]

So far the USA has scored 18 goals in 9 matches in 2 rounds (avg. 2.0). We scored 13 in 6 matches in the first round (2.17 average).
England has scored 13 goals in 6 matches (2.17 average).
For all your analysis of the contrasting styles, bottom line is similar.

[appoo]

IMHO Enlgand are one of the 3 best sides in the World with the addition of Joe Cole and Wayne Rooney. If you look at the Euro's they were the most impressive side i the tournament until Rooney broke his ankle. Take a look at their midfield. Where David freakin Beckham is the weakest link. Steven Gerrard, Frankie Lampard, and Joe Cole round out the midfield. Gerrard and Lamps are among the best 2-way midfielders in the world, either one can get stuck ini, either one can get forward and deliever decisive through balls, either can deliever blasts from range...they're box to box midfielders. Joe Cole is an extremely good attackign midfielder. Barcalona had absolutly no answer for him - and in alot of ways he was the best attacking player in that 2nd round matchup with Barca. Ronadinho is far more talented, but it seemed that Cole was the more forceful player and had a greater impact. His forte? Taking players, creatving havoc with his passing and dribbling, and he finishing has been excellent recently. When BEckham plays within himself and lets the game come to him he's the guy that can deliever pin point crosses, makes extremely intelliegent runs, has a great sense of the game we all know abouot his free kicks, and plus he knows how to track back defensivly. He's ripped up oneside and down there other but he's still a VERY good footballer.

They have 3 world class centra defenders in Rio, John Terry, and Sol Cambell, Ashley Cole is considered the best left back in the world, and Gary Neville isn't far back on the right side. Both love to get forward, both can beat players off the deliever, both can cross the ball.

Up front you have Wayne Rooney, who's biggest talent is his amazing sense of the game. He knows exacty what to do and he does it at exactly the right time. He's got a blistering cannon for a shot, and he's an above average dribbler. Along side him is the hot and cold Michael Owen. When he's off, like he was against Azjierbijan he won't finish anythign and he's better off on the the bench. When he's on....just think about what he did in the 98 World Cup. He turns into one of the best forwards in the world who can create a goal at any moment of the match.

How does USA match up against them? Let's pretend we're fully healthy. Reyna, O'Brien, Donovan, and Beasley vs Lamps, Gerrard, Cole, and Becks is a mouth watering matchup. Both sides offer up 4 incredibly talented players but I think England probablly have better players in the end and would win that match up. Up front for USA, Eddie Johnson vs Rio and Terry would be an intriguing match up. I think he could hold his own against either defender in the air but I'm not sure he's a good enough ball handler to maintain possesion against either defender like he did against Guatemala and Mexico at times. He's also at a disadvantage because USA doesn't have a 2nd striker thats good enough to worry England so he'd reciever the brunt of attention. Again, I think thats an advantage for England.

Defensivly I think Mickey Owen would be swallowed up by Gooch and Pope. But what about wayne rooney? Personally, I dn't see ANYONE keeping up with him. And USA can't simply double mark khim because you can't leave Owne with that little attention. He'll punish you for that. In the end I think our Centeral defenders might be able to stand those two off, but they'd be help from our midfield. on the outside, Cherundolo is probably quick enough to close Beckham off but he's got to be smart enough to anticipate and close off Becks' runs. Somehow, Beckham always ends up at the recieving end of a through ball all alone in the box. But I think I can see Cherundolo handling Beckham. On the lelft, its not even close. Bocanegra would simply get torched by both Joe Cole and Ashley Cole.

I think the first half would be fairly even, but I think in the 2nd half England wear our midfield out and they'll be able to free Rooney and the two Cole's down our left and up the middle and create scoring oppurtunities. I'd say 2 - 1 England at the end of the match. perhaps 3 - 1

[JBigjake]

This question could be answered in Chicago May 28th, if England brings the first team. However, the Spanish season ends 5/29, so don't expect to see Beckham & Owens.

[appoo]

This question could be answered in Chicago May 28th, if England brings the first team. However, the Spanish season ends 5/29, so don't expect to see Beckham & Owens.

and are likely to be without the Chelsea trio of Terry, Lamps, and Joe Cole. And more than likely Manchester United and Arsenal will face off in the FA Cup. that means Rio, Gary Neville, Wayne Rooney, Sol Cambell, and Ashley Cole won't be availible.

[LittleMaradona]

At least we don't have some jackass/midget predicting he going to score 5 goals.

[striker]

This question could be answered in Chicago May 28th, if England brings the first team. However, the Spanish season ends 5/29, so don't expect to see Beckham & Owens.

When was the last time the England first team played like the first team in a friendly?

[counterattack]

Besides being absurd on the face of it, these comparisons with England are completely off target.

Why compare to a side and a country that have a dismal history of international competition? For crying out loud, football was invented in England, and they suck at it for the most part!

Want to compare? Start with Brazil. Stop there, that will do.

How are we compared to the Brazillians? We have a long ways to go. But the trend is up, and eventually the USA will play at their level.

As for the English there is NO HOPE, NONE, that they will ever play at the level of Brazil. Neither will the Dutch, or the Irish, or the Scotts, or any of those other little cute countries in Northwest Europe. So get real. The goal of the USA is to win a World Cup, not be a bunch of losers like the English.

[appoo]

so uh, whowon the world cupin 1998?

[BMincali]

[QUOTE=counterattack] Neither will the Dutch, or the Irish, or the Scotts, or any of those other little cute countries in Northwest Europe. [QUOTE]

Perhaps the English, Irish, Scotts, and Welsh will never play like the Brazilians but Holland, which is not located in Northwestern Europe, might. The Dutch play an attractive style of soccer (like the Brazilians) and have a more realistic chance of winning a world cup than do the Scotts, Irish and Welsh.

[Sanguine]

Holland, which is not located in Northwestern Europe

You might want to check a map sometime.

[ScissorsKick]

Besides being absurd on the face of it, these comparisons with England are completely off target.

Why compare to a side and a country that have a dismal history of international competition? For crying out loud, football was invented in England, and they suck at it for the most part!

Want to compare? Start with Brazil. Stop there, that will do.

How are we compared to the Brazillians? We have a long ways to go. But the trend is up, and eventually the USA will play at their level.

As for the English there is NO HOPE, NONE, that they will ever play at the level of Brazil. Neither will the Dutch, or the Irish, or the Scotts, or any of those other little cute countries in Northwest Europe. So get real. The goal of the USA is to win a World Cup, not be a bunch of losers like the English.

I agree with you there. We have bigger fish to fry!

And we have a lot to prove. I see the USMNT moving into another phase of its development. At least I see glimpses and really hope this is the case. We are moving from lets hold, possess the ball, and be timid (Reyna, Lewis, O’Brien) to lets use our speed and aggressiveness, take some chances and attack (Donovan, Beasley, Johnson, Noonan). Now I know the skeptics will immediately say, "Well you can't attack every team like the US did with Guatemala". However, that is when the US plays its BEST soccer and I think we may surprise a lot of teams if we continue that style of play. And learn to execute it well. We need to face the fact that we may not pick up any players as skilled technically that Brazil or France has any time soon, however, we do have speed (if not more) than a lot of the teams out there. I see the US team being compared to a speedier Germany. Aggressive and fast with a lot of team play. The one weakness some of the top international teams have is the inability to play as effectively as a team. For example, Brazil has unbelievable talent up front and at mid. However, they play individually a lot. Just as England. Too many of their players will try to run through three or four defenders at a time. Do they have the skill to be successful doing that...Yes. Is it the most effective route...No.

[gnatfan]

I am finding it odd that when reading through this thread there is no mention of goalkeeper. When big Brad was playing with the Nats not too long ago and people were filling out their starting 11, mostly folks suggested "whoever" should start at keeper. We have a superior group of GK's. That is what kept us in all those games when we were a "defensive specialty" team (or the old "everybody behind the ball" tactic).

I think our goalies are the best in the world, as a group. Perhaps not individually, at any particular moment in time, but collectively they must always be taken into the equation when comparing teams.

my .02 worth

[Shaster]

Guys, don't make this thread a US vs. England pissing contest. The reason that I started this thread because US in many ways are similiar in style with England -- direct and fast. Like Guatemala coach said that US did avalanche on his team. Think up a Mexico vs. England match up, I would see England can just run Mexico off the field with its blazing speed and play.

However, when I really compare, I found that as technical ability, many of US players are not too far away from England -- Johnson, Donovan, Reyna, JOB, Dempsey, Mastronei, Onyewu all have great technical skills. Cherundolo has good technical skill. Beasley, Lewis have OK skill but good speed, and Boca and Gibbs are servicable. But even with our good players in first category, I rarely see them to utilize the skill to attack opponents. Maybe we just need a new generation of players who have totally different mentality on this.

[Allamerican74]

Not sure England would run Mexico all over the field in Mexico though.

England on paper are better than the US. They have better skills. Also no one should think that the upcoming friendly is any indication of either team's ability. I'll just say that now.

[Maczebus]

At least we don't have some jackass/midget predicting he going to score 5 goals.

Neither do we.