After a more objective second viewing of USA vs. Belgium...

There is a tautological aspect to your responses that doesn't really get at the issues. About the other forwards you say all three were evaluated and dropped. Well suppose Altidore or Dempsey was evaluated and dropped. I guess that would settle it in your mind. But it wouldn't have in my mind. My reference point does not start and stop with whatever the coach decided.

You cite the goal differential after we went to 2 forwards as settling the argument regarding 2 forwards versus 3 mids. So if Wondo had buried his chance I take it you would have a different views regarding that argument?

 

When a team loses, every decision made by the coach becomes a mistake in someone's opinion. Fair enough, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Opinions that the coach blew it when he chose A instead of B are IMO intellectually bankrupt when neither player has ever done anything to make himself a compelling choice AND the opinion comes from someone who didn't attend the try outs and probably has no experience in evaluating talent at a WC level. Put simply, there is no basis that the choices previously discussed were mistakes. Donovan is and Dempsey / Altidore would be another story.

The 2 forward v. 5 mids debate is a legit debate. My problem with those advocating 2 forwards is that they cite the advantage of their choice but ignore the down side which we in fact experienced. BTW, as I thought I indicated, going to 2 strikers late in the game was the right move. IMO it was a gamble worth making late in the game, but not at the start.

 

Repped. I agree. As usual, the tactics were right but the personnel choices were questionable. Why no Beckerman? If we were going to move forward it would be one thing but we defended and tried to close down space in our own third and knit the defense together which is Beckerman's specialty. There was something odd about that choice. Last time he put Cam at the holding mid position we lost 3-1 to Costa Rica in the hex.

 

Honestly to me the whole tournament was Klinsman having a solid plan going in, but at the first sign of adversity he blinked. Bedoya, Davis, and Zusi all are going to operate best in a fairly tightly packed midfield. If you expect them to create off the dribble wide, you are going to get failure. The plan should have always to overload the center of the field. If you ask them to be traditional wide midfielders, you are setting htem up to fail.

But Altidore got hurt, and suddenly rather then just run the same formation with Wondo or AJ up top, he blinked. So we tried changing the formation. But the personnel wasnt there to change the formation. You have a plan, you should stick to it.

So the Beckerman out and Cameron in was the typical reactive, risk averse move that defined this world cup from a coaching perspective. We were afraid of Fellini in the middle, so rather then try to play our game we made a change to adjust to them. For most of the match we played not to lose. For most of the tournament we played not to lose. When the scoreline forced us to play to win, we looked pretty darn good. We should have been trying to win 2-1 or 3-2, not 1-0. That doesnt mean letting the game get wide open, it means accepting that we will at times concede, and believing that if we are committed to the attack we can make up for it.

Anyways, as for the Belgium game specifically, I dont think we had the midfield structure in place to force them wide, and then defend crosses. With Omar in the box, anytime you can force your opponent into becoming a crossing team, you have gone a long way to winning. Instead the less defined central midfield let a lot of space to transition through. Without Beckerman as the dedicated shield in the middle of the field we just allowed too much space in the wrong areas.

 

remember when 70% of this forum wrote Green off after those two friendlies? lmao

 

How about writing him off as a starter because he would hurt us but bring him in at the death when we are desperate?lmao

 

I knew Green was going to be used in the Shea role (fast sub in case of despair --"card up my sleeve" sort of player), because it's obvious that's where the kid is right now. But he can be a lot more. By 2018 he's likely to be a starter, but of course we have to see what happens.

 

The problem with guys like Green and Zelalem is that they become the excuse for Klinsmann to do nothing and say he isn't calling up this or that guy in MLS because the friendlies are in Europe so it makes sense to being a Euro squad then he will have a Camp Cupcake and call up people who are not particularly good and have them play Canada in a borefest. I'm kind of used to his tricks by now but not particularly impressed with the results.

 

Yep, I just wish he got more time. Too many injuries forced our hand. I always thought if he "took" anyone's spot, it was Brek Shea.

 

needed Donovan, an actual backup for Jozy, and probably a little more zest for attack during tied ball games

otherwise everything else basically a-ok.

this Cup was a disappointing success.

 

I would think after 15 years as the head honcho of MLS -- and all of the many positive milestones the league has seen in that time span -- we could safely assume he's a soccer guy.

Did anyone notice that the TV rights for MLS were just re-upped for 3x what they were before? Holy f-ing crap. Take a second to think about that for a minute.

What were we talking about again?

 

"Disappointing success" feels right. I do feel that as a program we made progress, if only incremental progress. We followed up a cycle where we got out of the group with another, and this time, it was against a nightmare draw. That's a first.

 

Green came in as a garbage time sub. He made a nice run and got a bit lucky when his misfit ball went in.

I hope he does well in the future for us but he has a long way to go.

If we hadn't gone gone down by the second goal, I highly doubt that Green would have seen the field.

 

Prediction: Green will do little to nothing of substance for us in WC 2018.

 

I think that the progress we've made is the successful debut of Yedlin, Besler and Beckerman, and to a lesser degree Omar. At the same time Cameron, Zusi, Wondo, and Davis struggled with the level of play.

A lot of this 'disappointing success' rests on the shoulders of Fab Jon and JJ - our two top performers. But both are imported soccer-Americans, they are not products of the US soccer program.

In terms of soccer (approach) we regressed. Mentally we were strong. Technically we've shown signs of improvement but mostly thanks to the imports. Tactically we were all over the place.

 

A

Usually we just end up fourth in the group this world cup and bomb out super early.

Interesting regression.

 

Objection your honor...relevance?

 

Off topic but how did the stadium referendum go? Also I think the gold cup in 2015 would be great to see at some of the MLS stadiums.

 

Most of the time an MLS call up to Europe is a bad idea. Sometimes he (and other US coaches) did call up more MLS players to European games, so I'm not sure of your point. Camp Cupcake is always about the camp and not the game. Has been before Klinsmann and will be that way after Klinsmann. These aren't "his" tricks. They are the current realities of the US National team as it relates to the calendar and Europe.
There are plenty of things to hit Klinsmann on. I'm not sure either of these points fall into that category.

 

He was getting ready before the 2nd goal. He (or someone) should have been brought in to start the extra time.

 

We can view the game as much as we want, here's the story of the game in one quick image:

 

I agree that the 5 mids vs 2 forwards is a legitimate debate. Plenty of teams play 5 mids, and successfully. The US attack didn't have to look so slow and non-threatening with 5 mids. The US didn't NEED to have 2 forwards to attack.

The key to attacking out of a 5-midfield arrangement is to have a few mids with real attacking skills and/or speed. Most often this would involve wing mids who are true scoring threats or can unbalance defenders with speed and movement. Sometimes the attack can come from a dominant ACM. But the US had none of that in JK's version of the 5-man midfield. Zusi has a great right leg for service, Bedoya has a really impressive work-rate, and Davis is smart and has a really nice left-footed service. But none of these three are dribblers, none have the speed to get behind defenders and stretch the field, and none are tremendous shooters. These guys were the US's primary wing midfielders and they simply were not capable of providing an attacking threat at this level. Meanwhile, at ACM we had the alternating Jones and Bradley, both of whom have tremendous work-rates and are terrific long passers, but are definitely not the offensively dominant type of ACM necessary for a 5-man midfield that also lacks dangerous attacking wing midfielders.

That's part of why I argued for several days in the Belgium pre-game thread that JK needed to take some risks. The pragmatic, cautious, rope-a-dope plan from the group phase wasn't going to work against Belgium. That's why I argued for starting Yedlin at RM and Johnson at LM against Belgium. The US needed some attacking threat from the start, especially against Belgium's outside backs, who are really CBs. Speed along the wings would put Belgium under some threat, and would provide Bradley and Jones with some targets for their high-quality long passes. And take some of the pressure off a worn down, isolated Dempsey. But JK was risk-averse and stuck with the pedestrian, non creative, not dangerous, slow Zusi and Bedoya. It killed the potential effectiveness of the 5-man midfield.

 

That's stunning. Absolutely brilliant. Thanks.

 

You are not aware of the long term relationship between US Soccer and the US military establishment that creates player development opportunities directly on European soil? Best youth program the US has.

 

Perfect. That description is perfect.