Latvia, Morocco and TBD for May Friendlies - WHY?

[USAin2006]

A lot of people have been critical of the choice of some of the opponents the USSF has chosen to have May friendlies against. I know ZERO about Latvia (aside from the fact that they did okay in Euro 2004) and know even less about Morocco -- though I don't think they knocked any socks off in the recent CAN (but I could be wrong).

Anyhow my question to all of you (or at least those of you who might know something about Latvian and Moroccan soccer ) is this:

Do Bruce and Mooch see something in these sides in terms of style of play that is similar to Ghana, Italy and the Czech Republic? And, given our group, who would be an ideal opponent to match up with for the Cleveland friendly (the TBD opponent).

Thanks!

[redstriker06]

Morocco is very similair to Ghana in terms of style... They have good midfielders and have a more defensive reputation but also have some great players that can create some beautiful football Jawad Zairi and Maroune Chamakh come to mind. Chamakh plays with Bordeaux and his having himself an amazing season.

Latvia is going to prepare us for the type of football we will face against the Czech Republic.

I think they are both solid decisions by Bruce Arena.

[FakeFlopper]

Good point. I think if you look at it that way these two teams are very good opponents. My biggest concern is injuries with so many friendlies, but then again, what's the point of having a healthy team that isn't good. Either way, I don't mind seeing more games.

[tuffbad]

Good post.

Thanks you for expressing the opinion that maybe BA knows something that all us "chatterers" dont. The world cup from a coaching standpoint is all about matchups and style. Good coaches manipulate their side to expose the weakness of others. For a winning coach its not about CAN we do it, it about HOW are we going to do it. Playing a variety of opponents like Morocco and Latvia will allow Bruce to evaluate players in situations he forsees playing out in the WC. I know that he has watched more film on all of the WC teams than everybody on this site, so if this is who he wants to play and who he wants to work his guys out against its not arbitrary.

[NoSix]

And, given our group, who would be an ideal opponent to match up with for the Cleveland friendly (the TBD opponent).


Ireland would be the ideal proxy for Italy's defense. They failed to qualify for the WC, so might be willing to travel to the US, and need to prepare for Euro 2008 qualifying, so would be expected to bring a strong squad.

[USFansinGermany]

Morocco's a pretty solid team, but Latvia is a joke. Especially when you consider that Romania, Colombia, Uruguay, and Northern Ireland are all going to be in the US at the time and are all better teams than Latvia.

If you look at our warm-up schedules for this WC and the last 2 (starting from the end of qualifying, Gold Cup games are starred):

1998: Sweden, Cuba*, Costa Rica*, Brazil*, Mexico*, Holland, @Belgium, Paraguay, @Austria, Macedonia, Kuwait, Scotland

2002: @South Korea, South Korea*, Cuba*, El Salvador*, Canada*, Costa Rica*, @Italy, Honduras, Ecuador, @Germany, Mexico, @Ireland, Uruguay, Jamaica, Holland

2006: @Scotland, Canada, Norway, Japan, Guatemala, Poland(neut), @Germany, Jamaica, Morocco, TBA, Latvia


The 2006 lineup is clearly far weaker than the 2002 lineup and I'd argue it's weaker than 1998 as well. In fact, the only way this friendly lineup will be anything other than a complete disaster is if the TBA game in Cleveland turns out to be Brazil. Doesn't mean the WC will be a disaster, of course, but it can't help our chances.

[BenfromUSA]

latvia are probably about at the level of scotland... all I know about them is that they have a really speedy striker named verpakovskis, and the style of play is similair to the czechs.

[thurd]

Morocco's a pretty solid team, but Latvia is a joke. Especially when you consider that Romania, Colombia, Uruguay, and Northern Ireland are all going to be in the US at the time and are all better teams than Latvia.


Why do you think so little of Latvia?? They're not that bad. And Northern Ireland - seriously??????????

[gohb]

In the recent CAN, Morocco played a physical, conservative game, mostly 4-5-1 or 5-4-1, with a fair amount of pressing. They scored zero goals in three games. (They didn't score that many goals in the qualifiers either.) They have a couple of genuine skill players--striker Marouane Chammakh is the best--but on the whole they get results through hard work.

[AGF Aarhus]

Morocco's a pretty solid team, but Latvia is a joke. Especially when you consider that Romania, Colombia, Uruguay, and Northern Ireland are all going to be in the US at the time and are all better teams than Latvia.
Latvia is not a joke. Jokes don't tend to qualify for major European tournements.

And Urugauy is the last team I want to see us play. Is there a dirtier team on the planet? I'd rather not go into a World Cup with broken legs, thank you.

[Bigrose30]

Some people around here just won't be happy unless we are playing Brazil and Argentina for every friendly.

Seriously, do some people think Bruce and the USSF just pick names out of a hat to play? There are a lot of factors that go into who we play in a friendly...sure, you can say Bruce is stupid and we should play Ireland, or Romania or whoever...but maybe we asked to play them. Maybe they don't want to play us. Maybe Latvia offered us a good compensation package...perhaps some fresh young goats?

(FYI, anyone who says Latvia is a joke, you're complaining without even checking the facts...Latvia qualified for Euro 2004, as several people have mentioned.)

Besides...These are just warm up matches, the result and the opponent are inconsequencial, and Bruce will say so himself when the time comes. The purpose is to get guys match-sharpened and to try player combinations together. That's all. Deal with it.

[cpwilson80]

Morocco's a pretty solid team, but Latvia is a joke. Especially when you consider that Romania, Colombia, Uruguay, and Northern Ireland are all going to be in the US at the time and are all better teams than Latvia.

If you look at our warm-up schedules for this WC and the last 2 (starting from the end of qualifying, Gold Cup games are starred):

1998: Sweden, Cuba*, Costa Rica*, Brazil*, Mexico*, Holland, @Belgium, Paraguay, @Austria, Macedonia, Kuwait, Scotland

2002: @South Korea, South Korea*, Cuba*, El Salvador*, Canada*, Costa Rica*, @Italy, Honduras, Ecuador, @Germany, Mexico, @Ireland, Uruguay, Jamaica, Holland

2006: @Scotland, Canada, Norway, Japan, Guatemala, Poland(neut), @Germany, Jamaica, Morocco, TBA, Latvia


The 2006 lineup is clearly far weaker than the 2002 lineup and I'd argue it's weaker than 1998 as well. In fact, the only way this friendly lineup will be anything other than a complete disaster is if the TBA game in Cleveland turns out to be Brazil. Doesn't mean the WC will be a disaster, of course, but it can't help our chances.

Great post.

Didn't 1998 teach us that "style" of the friendly opponents doesn't mean a damn thing come World Cup time?

I'm sure we had a harder time in 2006 scheduling friendlies, as the Gold Cup was inexplicably moved to the summer. But, aside from the Germany and Poland games, our schedule is much weaker than in 2002.

I don't know the cause of the scheduling issues. If I had to guess, I'd say teams are less likely to play us in a friendly now than they were in the past. I think to more established soccer nations, we represent a no-win situation: win, and it was what the country was "supposed to do against the Americans"; lose, and all hell breaks lose that the mighty (insert country here) couldn't beat a team like the US (and cue the, "they don't play attractive soccer" bitching ;) )

[numerista]

1998: 7 WC Finalists Sweden, Cuba*, Costa Rica*, Brazil*, Mexico*, Holland, @Belgium, Paraguay, @Austria, Macedonia, Kuwait, Scotland

2002: 9 WC Finalists @South Korea, South Korea*, Cuba*, El Salvador*, Canada*, Costa Rica*, @Italy, Honduras, Ecuador, @Germany, Mexico, @Ireland, Uruguay, Jamaica, Holland

2006: 3 WC Finalists @Scotland, Canada, Norway, Japan, Guatemala, Poland(neut), @Germany, Jamaica, Morocco, TBA, Latvia

As someone else said, this was an excellent post ... just adding color.

[Bruce S]

Great post.

Didn't 1998 teach us that "style" of the friendly opponents doesn't mean a damn thing come World Cup time?

)
there were many lessons from WC 1998, but I must say, I never heard of that one in particular!

[cpwilson80]

there were many lessons from WC 1998, but I must say, I never heard of that one in particular!

Austria was supposed to mimic Germany, and Macedonia was supposed to mimic Yugoslavia (I'm not sure about Kuwait and Iran.)

In short, playing a country because they serve as a proxy for a better country should not be the reason we select a particular opponent in a pre-WC friendly.

[Hed7181]

Austria was supposed to mimic Germany, and Macedonia was supposed to mimic Yugoslavia (I'm not sure about Kuwait and Iran.)

In short, playing a country because they serve as a proxy for a better country should not be the reason we select a particular opponent in a pre-WC friendly.

I think we had alot more problems than the teams we played in friendlies in 98. US Soccer in 98 and 06 are worlds apart, and almost incomparable to me.

[DGNB]

I too would have liked to have seen a tougher schedule. I feel like the 2-0 losss to Holland before WC2002 was actually a succesful game for the US. They really played an attractive game against one of the most quaility sides on Earth. They were unlucky not to achieve a better result, but I think that it prepared them for the speed and skill they were about to face, far more than a Guatemala or Jamaica. As far as non-qualified teams, I would say trying to schedule an Ireland or Cameroon or Nigeria would be a good start. Morrocco may be a good team, but I would love to see the US play a team with a bit more athelticism and size, although I readily admit, I do not know that much about Morrocco, i just feel a Cameroon is a closer fit to a Ghana. Heck, why not schedule France? They have a great striker and one of the most brilliant midfielders of all time, even if he is nearing the end. Argentina would be another team to schedule to compare with Italy.

[cleansheetbsc]

Thought is given to the opponent by USSF. These 3 games are to serve the following purposes

- Have a team ready (physically/metnally) to play 3 games in 8 or 9 days, and monitor how the recovery of the players progress after games 1 & 2.

- develop chemistry between the all players. Just about every player will start or play significant minutes in the first round. With card accumulation in the WC, player #21 better be ready to start a match. Keller aside, Donovan is the ONLY player who I would expect to see all 270 minutes of the first round. Cherundolo may have a shot at that.

I am not sure why many feel that Ireland is this great team, perhaps its the "sexy" matchup that is missing from this cycle. There are several European teams I would rather play than Ireland (No, Latvia is not one of them, but I trust the mgmt of the National team as to picking opponents).

Again, No Euro WC team, Brazil and Argentina would be willing to come here when they are opening up their camps in Europe. So the whole France, Argentia, Brazil thing is not going to happen.

[DGNB]

Thought is given to the opponent by USSF. These 3 games are to serve the following purposes

- Have a team ready (physically/metnally) to play 3 games in 8 or 9 days, and monitor how the recovery of the players progress after games 1 & 2.

- develop chemistry between the all players. Just about every player will start or play significant minutes in the first round. With card accumulation in the WC, player #21 better be ready to start a match. Keller aside, Donovan is the ONLY player who I would expect to see all 270 minutes of the first round. Cherundolo may have a shot at that.

I am not sure why many feel that Ireland is this great team, perhaps its the "sexy" matchup that is missing from this cycle. There are several European teams I would rather play than Ireland (No, Latvia is not one of them, but I trust the mgmt of the National team as to picking opponents).

Again, No Euro WC team, Brazil and Argentina would be willing to come here when they are opening up their camps in Europe. So the whole France, Argentia, Brazil thing is not going to happen.

I think people are looking at ireland because it does have a good deal of quality, premiership players and, most importantly, is not going to the Cup, thus they would be more willing to travel to the states. Most of the other major Eueropean teams are in the cup. As you said, Brazil, France, Argentina would require a trip by the US, however, it might be worth it to leave for the cup a few days earlier than planned and play someone in Europe.

[leftjab]

great new article on the official World Cup site called "Do Friendly Results Matter," looking at the cups since '70 and how the finalists did in pre-WC friendlies:

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/060310/1/69lj.html


it's a mixed bag -- some winners did great in friendlies, while others did not.