Was last night good enough on the world stage?

[Kevin8833]

I want to see if people think the way we played last night would result in or at least mean we are on our way to having success in a World Cup. In my opinion it was a great win, great score :D and we now for sure own CONCACAF and should qualify with ease. But I still think a lot of changes need to happen if we are to even advance out of our group in South Africa, but I think right now we might advance out of our group by backing in somehow and lose in the round of 16. In my opinion we have two players who should be automatically written on every team sheet (Howard and Donovan), it seems like Bradley feels that number is somewhere around 8 or 9 automatics. I would like to see what other people think.

[ToBeAGooner]

Good teams punish mistakes like our sloppy clearences. Thank goodness Mexico isnt a good team.

[Kevin8833]

Good teams punish mistakes like our sloppy clearences. Thank goodness Mexico isnt a good team.
I agree, I don't want people thinking I'm being pessimistic because it was a great win and it is great how much we dominate CONCACAF but as we know from the past dominating CONCACAF means nothing on the world stage. I just have a fear of complacency, and that we will go into South Africa for the Confederations Cup just prior to the world cup and possibly get runover before we have time to adjust.

[johnboys]

I really enjoyed the game last night in the facy that we won,,,,,i really dont think we looked as sharp as we are all thinking. No one played bad but no was great/amazing. The 1 player in my mind that stands out is F. Hedjuk, he has such a high energy level that i think no one on that field/both teams came even close to match.

We are still a bubble team when it comes to getting out of our group in the world cup, if you make it out of the group then anything is possible.

[SamsArmySam]

I'm a conscientious objector to this poll.

First, it's a leading question, and it's obvious where you're trying to lead us.

Second, "Good enough on the world stage" was not the measuring stick by which anyone should view last night's performance. "Good enough on the world stage" did not enter Bob Bradley's mind as he prepared the squad. "Good enough on the world stage" was irrelevant as the players geared up for the Classico.

It's real simple. You win a qualifier, you get 3 points. We walked away last night with all 3. Mexico walked away with 0. That is literally ALL that matters in the first match of Hex qualifying, particularly when you are playing against Mexico.

Good enough on the world stage? Yesterday, that question was irrelevant.

[dna77054]

Much depends on the group of course, but in general I would say last night was not good enough. Most WC teams with a realist shot at the 2nd round will have at least a competent, if not good, #9 to put in the shots that Mexico always seems to miss.

On the offensive front, we still rely too much on hoping to get on the end of high balls in the box or poking in the random bounce against good teams. This works fairly well against an undersized Mexico, but I doubt we will play any team shorter than Mexico in the WC.

I thought the midfield I saw last night was good enough. I saw good posession, creativity, and off the ball movement. Usually Mexico wins the midfield, that did not happen in this game. I attribute that to several factors: 1. We played very well in the midfield. 2. Mexico had an off day possesion wise, tried to bypass the midfield with long balls (which was stupid as that is not their game) and did not send as many players forward to avoid our counterattack. In a small way that did work for them, as we never got behind them on a counter. 3. We did not play with a midfield destroyer, giving us an extra skill player in midfield.

I wonder if we will continue to play without a destroyer. Does anybody think we will use a destroyer in Azteca or Saprissa or stay with the extra skill? Will playing without a destoyer hurt or help our chances against the elite level teams? Dare we challenge Holland, Brazil, Argentina etc for control of the game or do we defend and counter?

[Barcasox]

It was a good win, but an unconvincing performance. But I think we have more than enough games to improve our team enough to compete in the second round come 2010.

[FirstStar]

I'm pretty open that I don't like B Bradley's job managing the team. That said, the team's performance last night was better than it might appear to you. The conditions were terrible-- there was serious talk of postponing the game. The wind really took hold of balls in the air. It was a tough way to play. So, I rate the USMNT's performance last night as "better than it might appear".

That said, we still make too many mistakes. In 2002, we outplayed most of our bad mistakes. In 2006 we got punished on almost every single one. In 2010, I'd rather see us not make any. We are not there yet.

[Marko72]

Our performance in most aspects last night would see us take points off of World Cup teams, except for one major aspect, and that's clearances. A good team having a reasonable night would've punished us at least twice for the craziness we were having in the back.

[Prime Time]

Last night's performance was solid. That's all that needs to be said. Dos a cero.

[Altidore_Adu_Fan]

onyewu boca pierce and sasha kept giving the ball away not often but enough for better opponents than mexico to score on us. i seen italy vs brazil & argentina vs france and we are no were on their level. so mr bradley needs to step up his coaching skills or were screwed

[toddk15]

Also another thing to consider, this is the one game ESPN really pumps up and advertises trying to grow the sport and bring the casual fan in. That performance last night especially in the second half really wasted a great opportunity IMO. That was just terrible soccer to watch. Great result yes. Viewing spectacle of attacking soccer no.

[Prime Time]

Also another thing to consider, this is the one game ESPN really pumps up and advertises trying to grow the sport and bring the casual fan in. That performance last night especially in the second half really wasted a great opportunity IMO. That was just terrible soccer to watch. Great result yes. Viewing spectacle of attacking soccer no.

Then change the channel if it's so terrible.

[Barcasox]

another important thing we have to learn is taking the game to the other team when up a man. Bob said that we needed to keep our foot on the pedal, and he's right because if we are playing 11 v 10 versus Italy and there's no one in the box to cross to, it wouldn't be good at all.

[toddk15]

Then change the channel if it's so terrible.

For the USMNT supporter like myself since the early 90's you aren't going to do that, but for the casual fan, the guy who you are trying to grow the sport to, they would have. And you can argue the USMNT is the most important vehicle to driving the sport in this country.

[Marko72]

The thing is, we're in a pretty good position given the age of our squad and at which point in the cycle we're at. The performance we put in would beat almost everybody in the Hex at most venues. That's the minimum required level at this point. The team is on an upward trajectory, particularly in terms of midfield play, and that's crucial. And they're taking their chances reasonably well.

We need to be at World Cup level in the summer of 2010. Being at that level in early 2009 would be nice but is not necessary.

The Confed Cup later this year against some stiff competition from Brazil, Italy, and Egypt should serve to give us a clear warning of any weaknesses that are being hidden in CONCACAF. From the last set of tough opponents we played in 2008 we got a similar warning and had things to work on to get to this point.

[HogDaddy]

For the USMNT supporter like myself since the early 90's you aren't going to do that, but for the casual fan, the guy who you are trying to grow the sport to, they would have. And you can argue the USMNT is the most important vehicle to driving the sport in this country.

I'm in agreement with Toddk15 on this one. That was a hard game to watch. We are not going to win any causul fans with that game.

While earlier posters make the point that the conditions made 'beautiful' soccer more difficult, and that's true, there was something else that seemed to be lacking. The passion and intensity did not come thru on the TV. Maybe the crowd sound was not loud enough, maybe the conditions had something to do with it, I don't know. But it seemed more like a friendly than a WCQ. The red card incident as a noteable exception, there was not a lot of the chippiness that I expect in a US-Mex match up.

Maybe it's me, and a US win over Mexico isn't that special anymore. After so many wins over Mexico, it loses it's thrill. But it even seemed that the players were not as amped up as usual. Did anybody else feel that way?

[Marko72]

I'm in agreement with Toddk15 on this one. That was a hard game to watch. We are not going to win any causul fans with that game.

While earlier posters make the point that the conditions made 'beautiful' soccer more difficult, and that's true, there was something else that seemed to be lacking. The passion and intensity did not come thru on the TV. Maybe the crowd sound was not loud enough, maybe the conditions had something to do with it, I don't know. But it seemed more like a friendly than a WCQ. The red card incident as a noteable exception, there was not a lot of the chippiness that I expect in a US-Mex match up.

Maybe it's me, and a US win over Mexico isn't that special anymore. After so many wins over Mexico, it loses it's thrill. But it even seemed that the players were not as amped up as usual. Did anybody else feel that way?

Honestly, no. It was by-and-large a well-played match as a team, even not taking conditions into account. We controlled the midfield for long stretches, we moved the ball around, and we created chances up front. We even showed some attacking verve. We were horribly deficient clearing the ball, unfortunately. The game was by-and-large played hard and physical but sportingly by both teams and the refereeing was good.

Nevada Smiths was packed to the gills and very, very loud. We felt the passion.

[counterattack]

Okay, I know I just voted 3 and Out.
I was at the Match, and I had to.
If the question was on Mexico, it would be 3 and Out, with the aside, if they make it to South Africa. . .
BUT.
It is 2009, not 2010.
Bradley is a way better coach than I am.
I would never had let Beez take that corner, after the junk he sent up the previous corners and crosses. But Beez was just trying to adjust to winds that can only be described as INSANE. (Not just speed, but six or seven different directions per second) So, he send one in the air, Landykins had the good sense to move that far away, Onyewu made a move on his marker that was pure gold, and Young Bradley was the Stud of the Match. So goes football.

What I want to point out that gives me hope is this: Bradley is building strength up the middle of the pitch. Not quite to the front, but getting close.
First, in all the field sports, teams win that are strong in the middle of the field. Rugby, Soccer, US Football, hell it's true in Hockey. You have a strong goalie, a strong central back, strong central middies and world beater front runner, and you are going to win.
Last night the studs on the US side were Howard, Bradley and Onyewu. All showing strength and skill at a level above the other players ON BOTH SIDES on the pitch. (Not to slight Frankie, but I am looking at the guys who are coming into their prime). Howard has the potential to be the kind of goalie you can ride to places no one now can imagine. He is world class, and more talented than any US goalie I have ever seen.
Onyewu did have a shaky moment or two, but his talent and confidence get him over humps that will disappear with experience. As we saw on the corner he is mental player, too.
Bradley may not have the other ones native talent, but he was the one guy on the pitch, beside Frankie, who wanted to play his game at a higher level than we may have seen before. Good Lord, if only they all would.
What still stops me cold are the front runners. Landykins will not put his ass in danger. Beez is all speed on a team that finds the slowest way to move a ball, at times. Ching looked like a guy in the middle of his off season, and it was a bit unfair, though he always has talent. When Josie got in it was easy to thrill to the potential of this young man. Oh, if he was only in his mid-twenties in 2010! If something gives, and the front gets as solid and dangerous as it should be, yeah we could think about the second round. But, even with a strong central it still takes big talent on the wings to make this work. That and way more pace. WAY MORE PACE.

[oscar_in_fw]

The Mexico game was sloppy, large part because of the Weather. Nevertheless, I saw the US have it's share of possession/control of the midfield. How much of that is team growth and how much is Sven-tactics not working well for Mexico remains to be seen.

We ain't ready yet. Most of our most promising players are still young and unseasoned. Give Kjlestan, Edu, Bradley, Torres, Orozco, Szetela, Adu, Clark, Altidore et al a few years starting on Euro first division teams; then maybe we can talk about being ready to really compete at the World Cup. We'll be lucky to get any results at the Confederation Cup and even luckier to advance to the knockout stage at the 2010 WC.

OTOH, I'll be disappointed if we aren't serious contenders for the 2018 or 2022 WC; especially if we are the host. I'm assuming the next few "crops" of promising youngsters will be even better than the ones we are fielding/grooming today.