US - Mexico second viewing

[lurking]

I watched the game for a second time, paying attention to how the game was developing (taking special not of Chris Armas, but thats another thread).

Offensively, we werent that great. We had 2 real chances in the run of play, and flubbed both. We moved the ball around reasonably well, but showed little imagination or danger around the penalty area.

Defensively, we played excellent team defense. 1v1 defending was solid, but not the point of emphasis, as Mexico seldom had chances to go 1v1 in productive areas on the field. Mexico could possess the ball at times, but we stayed organized and never really gave them a decent look on goal. Their two best opportunities were from a set piece and a really poor touch that blew a potential 1v1. Other than that, nothing.

Why did we win? Simple, Mexico was never going to score. They didnt do much of anything to threaten Keller, that secured at least a tie. We added to that a couple of excellently taken set piece opportunities. Once we got the first goal the game was over. The second goal was icing.

If we blow those set piece opportunities Im not sure we win. I know we dont lose, but while Mexico wanst threatening our goal, we were not threatening theirs.

We beat them with ruthless efficiency. I wouldnt say we dominated them exactly, but we did have a relatively easy victory.

[Marko72]

I watched the game for a second time, paying attention to how the game was developing (taking special not of Chris Armas, but thats another thread).

Offensively, we werent that great. We had 2 real chances in the run of play, and flubbed both. We moved the ball around reasonably well, but showed little imagination or danger around the penalty area.

Defensively, we played excellent team defense. 1v1 defending was solid, but not the point of emphasis, as Mexico seldom had chances to go 1v1 in productive areas on the field. Mexico could possess the ball at times, but we stayed organized and never really gave them a decent look on goal. Their two best opportunities were from a set piece and a really poor touch that blew a potential 1v1. Other than that, nothing.

Why did we win? Simple, Mexico was never going to score. They didnt do much of anything to threaten Keller, that secured at least a tie. We added to that a couple of excellently taken set piece opportunities. Once we got the first goal the game was over. The second goal was icing.

If we blow those set piece opportunities Im not sure we win. I know we dont lose, but while Mexico wanst threatening our goal, we were not threatening theirs.

We beat them with ruthless efficiency. I wouldnt say we dominated them exactly, but we did have a relatively easy victory.

I watched the game a second time and came up with the same conclusion, further vindicating what I said beforehand that both teams were going to play a tight, physical, rhythmless game, and that our attack would be good enough to get opportunistic at least once, maybe twice, and they wouldn't be able to victimize us more than once if that. I think it's pretty clear that was Arena's train of thought and he was right.

[Ajaciedian]

I watched the game a second time and came up with the same conclusion, further vindicating what I said beforehand that both teams were going to play a tight, physical, rhythmless game, and that our attack would be good enough to get opportunistic at least once, maybe twice, and they wouldn't be able to victimize us more than once if that. I think it's pretty clear that was Arena's train of thought and he was right.

Sounds like a typical match at this level between two fairly evenly matched opponents. Wonder how many people have a problem winning a game like that.

Cheers,
KD

[geordienation]

I watched the game for a second time, paying attention to how the game was developing (taking special not of Chris Armas, but thats another thread).

Offensively, we werent that great. We had 2 real chances in the run of play, and flubbed both. We moved the ball around reasonably well, but showed little imagination or danger around the penalty area.

Defensively, we played excellent team defense. 1v1 defending was solid, but not the point of emphasis, as Mexico seldom had chances to go 1v1 in productive areas on the field. Mexico could possess the ball at times, but we stayed organized and never really gave them a decent look on goal. Their two best opportunities were from a set piece and a really poor touch that blew a potential 1v1. Other than that, nothing.

Why did we win? Simple, Mexico was never going to score. They didnt do much of anything to threaten Keller, that secured at least a tie. We added to that a couple of excellently taken set piece opportunities. Once we got the first goal the game was over. The second goal was icing.

If we blow those set piece opportunities Im not sure we win. I know we dont lose, but while Mexico wanst threatening our goal, we were not threatening theirs.

We beat them with ruthless efficiency. I wouldnt say we dominated them exactly, but we did have a relatively easy victory.


That's interesting. I'm gonna finally watch the game tonight. I watched some highlights (read: goals) when I got back, but haven't picked it apart yet.

I think it's interesting that we converted the set pieces as that's something we haven't always done especially well.

[dark knight]

bump.

[Red Star]

I watched the game last night again. I did not see the period of Mexie domination in the second part of the first half that I read so much about. They had more posession than at other points in the game but it was pretty pointless.

[Casper]

I watched the game last night again. I did not see the period of Mexie domination in the second part of the first half that I read so much about. They had more posession than at other points in the game but it was pretty pointless.
Agreed. The "ole" chants late in the first half were pretty embarassing, considering they were mostly for passes among the backline followed by a frustrated turnover long ball in almost every case. If you're proud of possession like that, you have a very boring outlook on this sport.

[Adam Zebrowski]

in the 1st half zinha had a chance to get in all alone on keller but couldn't contril the ball...

and the free kick in injury time was the 2nd good chance...

I recall marquez havign a shot from distance, about 30 meters, but it'd had to have been brilliant...

the key is NOT having breakdowns.....

you don't make mistakes and it's hard for the other guy to break you down...

in june 2006, I suspect usa uses the same approach, reasonable defensive pressure to cause a transition attack and a reliance on set plays....

no defensive blunders or poor match-ups and things will go well

[Red Star]

Marquez(?) also had a sharp shot from the top of the box, left hand side, early in the 2nd half. Keller made the save (no rebound) look alot easier than it was.

Late in the game one of their guys also got a free but very awkward volley from the right hand post, back to the goal and ended up actually kicking it away from the US goal, what a clown.

[Dead Run]

I watched the game a 2nd time as well. It was surprisingly even. We beat them with tactics. Bruce said after the game that during 1/2 time he wanted to push our forwards up and have them positioned to collect the fouls he knew would come and get dangerous free kicks. This is exactly what happened in the 2nd half.

It's good to know that we have a coach who can make the right decisions and a team disciplined enough to execute. After the goals we just played defensively and they were never a serious threat. They were disorganized throughout.

[2-0 Baby]

Are we developing a style? I think so. It varies a bit from game to game depending on the opponent, but remains conceptually intact.

We have Style A which we incorporate against superior technical teams. The style we employed against Mexico, described so succinctly above, is this style. I think we saw this same style in '02 v Portugal. It's proven to be quite effective under Bruce's oversight and I, for one, have no problem winning big games like this.

Style B is the style we employ against inferior teams which is, more or less, a high pressure in the middle third style similar to the one we employ against technically superior teams. However, since the team is inferior techncially, the Guatemalas, Panamas, etc., we're able to attack more and retain more posession.

When we play a team that is similar to us, Germany and Poland in '02 for example, the game is quite even and at times free-flowing even though we're playing the same high-pressure style. Against Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Holland and other technical teams we feel we need to stifle them so we do.

South Korea in '02 is one team, to which, I'd compare our current style. Both teams rely on fitness and discipline much like Brazil relies on technique and skill.

Lavolpe, after all, did give Bruce credit for his tactical awareness. Nobody can deny that we have a game plan and are usually quite good at executing it. It makes me wonder how good Mexico could be if they changed their attitude and thinking about tactics and style. Mexico with Bruce in charge would be quite scary. They just don't have the mentality to play that type of disciplined football.

I don't think this is anything new, but do think that once again we've shown how successful we can be when we employ our style...something we didn't do at Azteca.

[johnnygol]

We are not the more skillful people with the ball , so credit to Bruce for using strategy "American Cattenacio". Maybe is not the most beautiful way of playing but in order to be effective; concentration, effort and dicipline are crucial. So noone can denied that the winning was deserved. We look most of the time solid and mature. I just hope that JOB gets and remains healthy, we need him and reyna in the mid.

[Delta Blues]

We are not the more skillful people with the ball , so credit to Bruce for using strategy "American Cattenacio". Maybe is not the most beautiful way of playing but in order to be effective; concentration, effort and dicipline are crucial. So noone can denied that the winning was deserved. We look most of the time solid and mature. I just hope that JOB gets and remains healthy, we need him and reyna in the midfield.

I'd much rather have Donovan at Reyna's CM spot. He's simply not able to exert himself on a game at forward. The challenge is that Bruce seems hell bent on getting JOB and Reyna in when they're healthy, which almost puts Landon at forward by default. Unless Bruce decides JOB will play at LB I don't see how Landon gets to play his best position at CM.

[DaMa]

I'd much rather have Donovan at Reyna's CM spot. He's simply not able to exert himself on a game at forward. The challenge is that Bruce seems hell bent on getting JOB and Reyna in when they're healthy, which almost puts Landon at forward by default. Unless Bruce decides JOB will play at LB I don't see how Landon gets to play his best position at CM.


Could easily be done in a box midfield with LD/DMB ahead of CR/JOB. Or any variation thereof. Hard to argue against that being our best midfield.

As for the rewatch. I too rewatched it. There was no period of mexico domination. The ole's on the 7 horizontal/backpasses were hilarious. Mexico played for the tie and it looked to be their only choice as they were physically marked out of the match. We had a couple of chances in the run of play (LD had a couple he flubbed, Armas got in the way of 1 etc) but our set pieces continue to be dangerous, particularly the short corners weve started taking.

[Delta Blues]

Could easily be done in a box midfield with LD/DMB ahead of CR/JOB. Or any variation thereof. Hard to argue against that being our best midfield.

As for the rewatch. I too rewatched it. There was no period of mexico domination. The ole's on the 7 horizontal/backpasses were hilarious. Mexico played for the tie and it looked to be their only choice as they were physically marked out of the match. We had a couple of chances in the run of play (LD had a couple he flubbed, Armas got in the way of 1 etc) but our set pieces continue to be dangerous, particularly the short corners weve started taking.

He's done it once or twice, so it's not out of the question, but Bruce likes to get as wide as possible, hence the Ralston choice at RM, and Lewis/Beas/Convey at LM. I know Bruce would never do it, but a 3-5-2 would allow us to use our best players.

Keller
Cherundolo-Gooch-Lewis
Mastro-Reyna
Beasley-Donovan-JOB
McBride-GAM

[DaMa]

He's done it once or twice, so it's not out of the question, but Bruce likes to get as wide as possible, hence the Ralston choice at RM, and Lewis/Beas/Convey at LM. I know Bruce would never do it, but a 3-5-2 would allow us to use our best players.

Keller
Cherundolo-Gooch-Lewis
Mastro-Reyna
Beasley-Donovan-JOB
McBride-GAM


Definitely true. But also consider that even with a box mid and a 4-4-2 where you have Dolo, Gooch, Gibbs and Lewis as the backs, both Lewis and Dolo are very skilled at carrying the ball forward and crossing it (when's the last time we've started *2* outside backs who could do that?) and would provide decent width. With JOB, CR and DMB all good to excellent defenders out of the midfield you could certainly get a lot of runs out of the back with those 2.

[FirstStar]

He's done it once or twice, so it's not out of the question, but Bruce likes to get as wide as possible, hence the Ralston choice at RM, and Lewis/Beas/Convey at LM. I know Bruce would never do it, but a 3-5-2 would allow us to use our best players.

Keller
Cherundolo-Gooch-Lewis
Mastro-Reyna
Beasley-Donovan-JOB
McBride-GAM

However many ways you slice the cake, the 3-man backline is still the answer. Think of all the players you really want on the pitch-- LD, KK, GAM, DFB, JOB, CR, and Gooch. That only leaves four to mix in. A four-man back line eats up three of those, but a three-man back gives us that extra space to play another midfielder, where we are deepest in talent. It disfavors 'Dolo and may be trouble for Lewis & Convey, but it's the best way to go to get our most talented plays out there all at once:

Keller
Gibbs-Gooch-Boca (our best back three, all playing in natural positions)
Reyna - JOB (or Mastro for Reyna, Lewis for JOB, Dolo for Reyna . . .)
DMB-LD-Lewis (or Convey for Lewis, Reyna for DMB, Q for DMB . . .)
McBride - GAM (or put DMB up top on the left for McBride)

The switch of Lewis to LB, though, may help solve the four-man backline problem:

Keller
Dolo-Gooch-Gibbs-Lewis
Reyna -- JOB
Landon -------- DMB
GAM ---- McBride

[ursula]

I think it's interesting that we converted the set pieces as that's something we haven't always done especially well.


For the second goal, off the corner, I'm liking more and more the idea of DMB and LD (with Convey as a backup) together at the corner, and having a good passer where Reyna was (JOB or several other players could be there). There are just so many options to score besides the 'ol huck it into the mix that even if you know it's coming (and future opponents will) it's hard to defense. It's like Mike Martz designed it.

[chad]

However many ways you slice the cake, the 3-man backline is still the answer. Think of all the players you really want on the pitch-- LD, KK, GAM, DFB, JOB, CR, and Gooch. That only leaves four to mix in. A four-man back line eats up three of those, but a three-man back gives us that extra space to play another midfielder, where we are deepest in talent. It disfavors 'Dolo and may be trouble for Lewis & Convey, but it's the best way to go to get our most talented plays out there all at once:

Keller
Gibbs-Gooch-Boca (our best back three, all playing in natural positions)
Reyna - JOB (or Mastro for Reyna, Lewis for JOB, Dolo for Reyna . . .)
DMB-LD-Lewis (or Convey for Lewis, Reyna for DMB, Q for DMB . . .)
McBride - GAM (or put DMB up top on the left for McBride)

The switch of Lewis to LB, though, may help solve the four-man backline problem:

Keller
Dolo-Gooch-Gibbs-Lewis
Reyna -- JOB
Landon -------- DMB
GAM ---- McBride
That's a great set of line-ups.

[Marko72]

However many ways you slice the cake, the 3-man backline is still the answer. Think of all the players you really want on the pitch-- LD, KK, GAM, DFB, JOB, CR, and Gooch. That only leaves four to mix in. A four-man back line eats up three of those, but a three-man back gives us that extra space to play another midfielder, where we are deepest in talent. It disfavors 'Dolo and may be trouble for Lewis & Convey, but it's the best way to go to get our most talented plays out there all at once:

Keller
Gibbs-Gooch-Boca (our best back three, all playing in natural positions)
Reyna - JOB (or Mastro for Reyna, Lewis for JOB, Dolo for Reyna . . .)
DMB-LD-Lewis (or Convey for Lewis, Reyna for DMB, Q for DMB . . .)
McBride - GAM (or put DMB up top on the left for McBride)

The switch of Lewis to LB, though, may help solve the four-man backline problem:

Keller
Dolo-Gooch-Gibbs-Lewis
Reyna -- JOB
Landon -------- DMB
GAM ---- McBride

The 2nd (you can quibble who will start, between Boca, Gibbs, and Gooch) lineup is probably our first-choice lineup in "normal" situations. I just do not like the 3 back lineup. Our greatest strength is at the wings with natural attackers, and you're asking them to defend. That's a lineup designed to counteract somebody else's superior strength in the middle of the field.