Mexico, better technically, USA better tactically

[coachjginn]

Mexico is dumb, just like their government, but they sure are good ball handlers and cheaters. They hate us cause they know that they willnever beat us again. We are getting bigger, better, and smarter. They are just gettng angrier. Too bad they mentally take themselves out of matches by trying to beat us up. It won't happen, especially when your tallest defensivve back is 5'9". Mexico changes their attitude, and the beat us. Usa need to play more together, and Bruce need to come up eith a syle...it changed tactically soooo much from the 2002WC.

If you agree or disagree, i would love to hear it. I am humble. I can be corrected!

Later guys!

Keep kickin',

coach jeff ginn
celtic storm soccer club
Orem, Ut USA

[Fah Que]

I don't know if Mexico is worse tactically. Both teams maximize their assets. US has athletic and height advantage so US played more long balls. Mexico is better with balls on their feet so they play more possession oriented style. Mexico's off the ball movement and flair were giving us trouble, but our defenders eventually figure them out.

US had more dangerous chances however. Mexico had a few shots from outside the box but Howard had those covered.

[EscoDU01]

What do you mean by their government being dumb? And I agree, from a coaching/tactics standpoint, Mexico has been totally outclassed since the Bruce has taken over.

[Various Styles]

Pass back and Long balls does not good tactics make. :)

[footfetish]

Originally posted by Various Styles
Pass back and Long balls does not good tactics make. :)

wins and draws they do make.

[Various Styles]

Originally posted by footfetish

wins and draws they do make.

In meaningless friendly they should matter Not :)

[geordienation]

Originally posted by Various Styles
In meaningless friendly they should matter Not :)


He's soooooooo cute when he's bitter.

[RoverMax]

The Mexicans definitely play dirty. There is no question about that.

I don't know if it is that we didn't play "together," but guys like Hejduk shouldn't be in the midfield and we just didn't convert on our chances.

[Bruce S]

Originally posted by USAMax34
The Mexicans definitely play dirty. There is no question about that.

.
I sw no dirty play last night. Beware generalizations like that.

[fatboy15]

Originally posted by Bruce S
I sw no dirty play last night.

he musta missed the game

[Bryan Gividen]

Not a thread has gone by without someone saying HAY-duk shouldn't be in the midfield. Guess what? Hejduk and Jones were the only two to make decent crosses the entire game. Hejduk hussled (sp?) his ass off. He played like a true flank player (he owned that entire side.) His offensive play never once jeporadized his devensive play.


Anyhow, on the tactics and technical skills. I definitely felt as if Mexico controlled the game for the most part, but what was interesting is that as soon as we got the ball, we tended to charge up field and make something good out of it. (We had some beautiful counters.)

Fah Que made a good point I never thought of. We played our strengths, they played their strengths. We played much better when things were wide open. Mexico excelled when they could pull 2 v. 2 players into an 8 yard area.

I also noticed that Mexico had very few chances when it came to finishing. While they held possesion, very few times did they end up getting into the box and trying anything. (Nice overhead kick though from that one Mexican player.)

On another note, the formations we played were a big part of it. Our 3-5-2 was interesting. Hejduk played a true flank role, and Beasely kind of did. (They play two very different styles of flank. Hejduk will cross where as Beasely runs at you and hopes to draw a guy or two out of the box and then tries to make a move toward goal.) Both covered those sides of the field well though. I think that the team should have been playing more balls to Hejduk. He was wide open and made some beautiful runs.

Good game... interested to see some more.

[JMoney418]

Yeah, Mexico "dominated last nite...let me tell you. I dont call domination holding midfield possession and playing keep away with no real good chances. Mexico maybe had 2 fair chanes at goal, and the rest were easily snuffed out by US defenders. When we attacked we attacked will and nearly got the game winner on numerous occasions. DMB made the Mexicans on his side his beyotch. And with a little more midfield support for our attackers we could have put in a couple. Overal I would call the game even. mexico held possession, and while possession is pretty and all, they didnt make anything of it. Frankly, if I was LaVolpe Id be very pissed at his team's inability to do really anything in the US box. No wonder mexico "dominated" Brazil. The US played Mexico's game and beat em at it last nite. Really only unfortunate we didnt win.

[BrianJames]

Originally posted by fatboy15
he musta missed the game

Pressing and hard tackles doesn't mean a team is playing dirty. I didn't see any Marquez' "torpedo header into Cobi's ear" type plays last night.

Good match, would have liked to see US link the def to attack with more possession, mixed in with the direct attack approach, rather than going to the long ball as much as we did. Sometimes it seems our team tries to play too much in tight spaces when we could have opened up space for LD and DMB by switching the field more often.

Note to DMB, you played pretty good last night, but you could start tearing some teams up by cutting to the inside more often, you don't always have to take a player on and cut to the outside.

Mexico played well, possessed well as usual, but they could have really taken it to us when we resorted to punting it up the field in desperation, but they never took advantage, especially during long periods when the US midfield started backing off and allowing Mexico space to possess.

[Ferris]

One particularly disappointing thing was that in the last 10 minutes I counted at least three times when a US player hit a long ball towards the Mexican goal when there wasn't any US player anywhere near where the ball came down! Twice the closest player to the ball was their Goalie...if they are going to play the long ball then they need to be on target.

[Adam Zebrowski]

It appears no one has mentioned the warmish humid weather at all.

If you're not acclimated to it, well, after about 30 minutes, you are cooked.

tactically, conceeding possession, and playing a counter game is how the USA succeeds...

It's all about identifying how you BEST play the game....

donovan and beasley and mathis attacking space is the best USA method...

how many dangerous chances did mexico have, one early in the match, where Howard tipped it over he next ....

several other chances where mexico never got even a decent shot...

so, you give mexico the possession, they all their ball skills and they get diddly....

and then you create 4 or 5 good chances, and fail to finish...

well, if on the whole you create double the good chances overyour foe, in the long run, good things will happen to you.

you can get picky over details, about not converting, or about some 20 year old kid not quite being perfect, but on the whole....

Bruce Arena is content with the overall performance from his team...

he's all about bottom line, which is World Cup...

and building towards it...

Bocanegra performance bodes well...

usa never has played the most entertaining soccer on the planet....

mexico can have all the great one touch skill, but in the long run, unless a true creative midfielder emerges for them, they are playing for 2nd in CONCACAF...

with the Martino's and Quaranta's coming on, add them to the Convey's and Donovan's and Beasley's and a nice set of competent defenders, and USA will do what they want to achieve next...

get to the Finals in 2006...

that's the goal, the ONLY one which counts.

And the MExicans know that too.

[MLSNHTOWN]

Originally posted by Adam Zebrowski
It appears no one has mentioned the warmish humid weather at all.

If you're not acclimated to it, well, after about 30 minutes, you are cooked.

tactically, conceeding possession, and playing a counter game is how the USA succeeds...

It's all about identifying how you BEST play the game....

donovan and beasley and mathis attacking space is the best USA method...

how many dangerous chances did mexico have, one early in the match, where Howard tipped it over he next ....

several other chances where mexico never got even a decent shot...

so, you give mexico the possession, they all their ball skills and they get diddly....

and then you create 4 or 5 good chances, and fail to finish...

well, if on the whole you create double the good chances overyour foe, in the long run, good things will happen to you.

you can get picky over details, about not converting, or about some 20 year old kid not quite being perfect, but on the whole....

Bruce Arena is content with the overall performance from his team...

he's all about bottom line, which is World Cup...

and building towards it...

Bocanegra performance bodes well...

usa never has played the most entertaining soccer on the planet....

mexico can have all the great one touch skill, but in the long run, unless a true creative midfielder emerges for them, they are playing for 2nd in CONCACAF...

with the Martino's and Quaranta's coming on, add them to the Convey's and Donovan's and Beasley's and a nice set of competent defenders, and USA will do what they want to achieve next...

get to the Finals in 2006...

that's the goal, the ONLY one which counts.

And the MExicans know that too.

I will add the following thought. I think the best attacking sides vary their attack (in the final third) and keep their opponents off their heels. (Statement of the obvious).

That being said....

The US attacked the final third via the longball and crosses into the box too much. Mexico attacked the final third via good gives and gos and one touch passes at the feet of their players.

I think both teams could incorporate a little bit of the others play into their own games to make for more balanced attacking.

[soccercptn]

Also, an understated fact is that the Mexican team has been training together for weeks, and already had a friendly under their belt. The US team was put together on Monday. I think that is a major reason Mexico looked more organized on the field than the US team did.

[jordibcn]

Originally posted by Bryan Gividen
Not a thread has gone by without someone saying HAY-duk shouldn't be in the midfield. Guess what? Hejduk and Jones were the only two to make decent crosses the entire game.

Bocanegra and Convey also had at least one good cross. Didn't Beasley have one decent cross?

[tubby_butter]

I agree with the thread title.

If you think ahead to the qualifiers, the US will be very happy to get two draws with Mexico. This means staying organized, playing relatively safe (long balls to seemingly no-one sometimes), and not giving them clear chances.

So, back to last night's game. It was very annoying for a USA fan to watch because Mexico had the ball for what seemed to be about 85 minutes. However, the US actually had more quality goal-scoring chances. I would consider that a tactical success, even without any goals.

[subbuteo]

I think that's a pretty fair assessment of last night's match.
With Arena leading the wya I expect the USA to be superior tactically every match.