Found this article interesting because it reinforces my belief that the Euros are still dismissing the US as a team.SkySports Perhaps my viewing was mistaken, but I did not see it this way: My take on the article is that it blames Poland for losing rather than giving the US any credit for winning. And, as far as I can see, the game was not covered by the Times, Sun or Guardian.
they were the better of the sides for the 1st half, USA for parts of the 2nd. Over the course of the match I think Poland had a slight advantage in terms of run of play
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/4764172.stm "The USA also triumphed, beating Poland 1-0 in Kaiserslautern thanks to Clint Dempsey's goal. In a game played in a snowstorm, Dempsey headed home from close range from an Eddie Lewis cross."
DOB couldn't get it straight. It looked to me like it was Lewis who sent the ball in that the Keeper punched into TT's head. Wagman on Soccer Times thought it was Donovan who sent in the cross. Would it kill the guys who are paid to watch/write about soccer to pay attention?
It clearly was Lewis. How Steve Cherondolo would have ended up on the left side of the field in the run of play, I have no clue.
What was Cherundolo? He had that nice free kick at the end of the first half. Lewis had the cross that the Boruc punched off of Twellman's head which Dempsey knocked in. I had the Poles with an edge in the first half, but they never did anything dangerous. I had the Americans with a better edge in the second half, at times with very good posession. If it were a boxing match I'd have scored it slightly in USA's favor. They definitely didn't have that look of a well-oiled machine as the MLS guys did after the extended camp though. Some put that down to Zavagnin in the back, but I think it had just as much to do with just not being in synch.
Definitely wasn't Cherundolo as the cross came from the far left side of the field. I'm pretty sure it was Lewis.
The possession stats would be interesting to see. I thought Poland was better in the back and through midfield but did little upfront. But the US had the ball alot albeit not in dangerous positions.
Poland was the best opponent we've seen so far this year. Still we played well, especially after an adjustment period in the 1st half.
Who cares what they think, they'll still deny we won the world cup when we lift the trophy over our heads!!!
That quote may be a little harsh but it is not entirely false. We were dominated in the first half, and we were very fortunate to get the early goal in the second have. Yes, we did play better in the second half, but who knows what would have happened if we hadn't gotten lucky on the goal.
sounds like a tie to me. and a funny aside- in my local paper, there was a bitty AP piece on the game saing we won in a penalty shootout...wtf?
I watched the game, and would never have choosen the word "dominate" to describe what was happening in the first half. I would say Poland was a little better, but dominating? That really is ridiculous. I'm as big a pessimist as anyone, but I was never concerned that Poland was dominating. Of course, maybe dominate doesn't mean imposing one's will in virtually all aspects of the game at leisure anymore.
I just watched the game for a second time and we were not "dominated" in the first half. Poland did manage to get us into their tempo and as a result the ball spent a lot of time in the air just being banged from one team to the next. But how many serious chances did they have? We even had a few promising forays forward that went for nothing because of bad touches and players not knowing what the other guys were doing. It wasn't pretty, but it was effective (0-0). In the second half we settled into our style and we imposed the tempo which created more room and forced Poland to foul constantly. Look, it was an ugly game and good teams have to win ugly sometimes. The Euros will never admit we are a good team (though I have friends in Germany who do) so it's just "luck". Speaking of luck, that goal was not "lucky". The Polish keeper actually gets a good fist on the ball. TT being there was not luck, it was the result of hustle and fearlessness. Same thing with Dempsey beating the defense to the back post. It wasn't like he was just standing there picking his nose when the ball fell at his feet. He made a nice run and was rewarded with TT's huge effort.
I watched the game also and agree with your general assessment. To say that Poland dominated the first half is clearly ridiculous. The Poles had more possession in midfield but did very little with it. There was only one through ball that Keller had to come out of his box that in any way looked dangerous. Poland's chances were few and weak. Keller and the US defence controlled their end of the field very effectively. In the first half, the US was disjointed in midfield and did not establish any flow or service to the forwards. They did manage however to counter the Poles at critical moments. About 30 minutes into the game the US started to settle down and steadily improved their possession. On occasions where the US did put some pressure on the Polish goal, that pressure looked more dangerous that anything the Poles were able to mount. Churundelo's free kick before the end of the 1st half deserved a goal with Dudek clearly beaten. The second half was much better period for the US with the US possession on a par or better than the Poles. More importantly, US possession became more and more effective and as the game wore on the US started to control the pace and tempo. The US deserved this win. It was not a case of the Poles losing the game but the US winining.
The field was terrible in the first half and it was obvious that the Poles were more adept at playing on it. When the snow started falling, we were much smoother on the ball. Also, don't forget that we looked fresh at the end and Poland didn't. Once again, our fitness played a part. That all being said, a draw would have been a fairer result. But, this game is not fair, and we have been on the wrong end of many matches like this in the past.
Ditto. That's laughable. Poland reduced our offense to utter crap, but for its part it had nothing but quarter chances. The game always looked like a 0-0 draw. To the extent that a team can be said to dominate a game that figured to end scoreless, then yeah sure Poland dominated.
Totally agree with your assessment. Edge to Poland in the 1st half, but not dangerous at all. Edge to us in the 2nd half, great goal. Good teams punish mistakes, and we did. Good teams win ugly games, and we did! Go USA!
Are you sure you were watching the game yesterday or the game 2 years ago? We were dominated in the first half. Playing at the other team's tempo is getting dominated. It is possible to be dominated in the 0-0 game or a 1-0 game. I the first half we couldn't string many passes togeather, and the Pol's controled the game. The only two chances we had in the first half were a set peice and scramble for a loose ball that the Polish defense failed to clear. Other than that we were not dangerous at all. The Pol's on the other hand had 3 shots and several other opportunites that KK and the defense were able to break up. You will never win a game playing for a 0-0 tie. Yes, our defense did well for the most part but it's not hard to bag a ball out of the area and they don't win games. Did we improve because we got the goal or did we get the goal because we improved? There wasn't really enough time before the goal to really tell, but the goal didn't result in a steady build up of play like our last few games. It was lucky. I agree that the US is a very good team, but even good teams get lucky. I can see the half time speech now. Bruce Arena: "Ok, I know how we are going to win the game. Eddie, you streak down the left side and cross the ball just out side of the goal area. Talyor, you go up for the header but don't quite get their. At this time the Keeper will come strinking out and punch the ball off your head so that it false perfectly for Clint. Clint you will be able to easily head the ball into the net because your defender will have given up on the play thinking the goal keeper has cleared the ball. Does that sound good to every one?" Yes, luck is a function of preperation and doing the right things but it is still luck. I give Eddie, Talyor, and Clint full credit for that goal, but it was lucky, just like it was unlucky that Talyor had so many good goals called back. Face it. Luck exists in soccer.
The US did a good job in defense but they had more than one chance. If we improved so much why is it we only had one shot in the entire first half and it came off a set peice? How did Churundelo's shot deserve a goal? It didn't go in. It was off a set peice, not a steady build up of play.