Again, once again, PLEASE understand:we're just not that good USA v ES [R]

What a load of crap ( The US game not the thread). Salvador had more energy, and more motivation. They beat our european based players in almost all 50/50 balls. They were motivated!!! The US players seemed to be there doing a favour! The salvadorian soccer was faster and attractive. We only played well after going down 2-0. Before that was just really really awful. if we can't beat el salvador what hope there is for the US?.
Besley can't pass any more and can't run either. What made him the player he was was his speed. That's now partially gone. Obviously his ability to pass is also gone.
What a load of crap. If we play like this on wednesday we will not beat Trinidad e Tobago.

 

Karl K. Sucks!!

 

Any more personal attacks will be dealth with infractions

 

Brazil lost to Peru, in Peru. Things like this happen. While it wasn't a great result for us, we still have lots of games to play.

 

I think this thread is a good thing to keep the USMNT in perspective.

This is my prediction:

We will qualify, (CONCACAF is just so weak).

Depending upon the draw, when when we play top European competition or Argentina/Brazil in 2010, we'll go three and out with maybe a draw just like last time. My point has always been this: you can beat Germany and Argentina in meaningless friendlies, but until we beat those teams in a game that matters, (World Cup, not Confed Cup) we'll never get any true international respect.

I don't see this team capable of that yet. I don't see Bob outcoaching an Italian or German or English side in a World Cup.

After we crash out of 2010 again, Bob will get fired and then replaced by another US Soccer insider coach, (Rongen, Hackworth) instead of an international coach who knows how to compete in short international competition. Until US Soccer can get outside of its own box, especially with coaching, we'll stay at 17th in the world.

My $0.02

 

Welcome to the genius that is the magical "target" striker....

 

I don't think that element of the formation was the problem.

 

I agree: It was just one of the many "problems" and the USA will do zero in South Africa with the current crop of "target dinosaurs"....

 

What are you talking about? We've played with the same formation at home and pretty much every game since BB took over. I can only guess you haven't been watching By the way we haven't lost all our games since BB's been at the helm.

 

Especially when we start playing against teams who's defenders don't' average 5'8.

 

exactly...all of the "major powers" have big central defenders to whom the immobile "target dinosaur" is meat and drink.

 

Watching the game I felt as if the US wasn't prepared for it. They certainly have the talent and showed that by tying the game but this should have been a win for the US. They didn't get the ball wide enough and they lacked creativity. I also still don't understand why our backs have to loft a ball into the box. Why bypass the midfield? We do have good strong midfielders who can provide the link up between the defenders and forwards.

Basically after watching this game I want Bradley gone more then ever. I never liked him in the first place. You shouldn't promote within a failing system and that is exactly what we have with the Bruce era. Time to go outside of the US and get serious, else we'll be lucky to get out of the group stage and if we do we better pray to play Mexico.

 

Ahhhh, for the good old days. . . .
It is a tough job being a target player when the universe
is doing everything possible to deny decent service.
Perhaps, something may be hidden from view.

Is there a single player who might save us from
the awaiting debacle and transform us from the
2-10-3 team we have proven ourselves to be in group qualifying
in the past 20 years, ahem (throat clearing loudly),
into the elite soccer superpower I had always hoped we
could become?

 

Best post of the thread. The sky's not falling, people. Get over it already

 

Bad results happen. I think there is some legitimate gripe with Bradley. I'll be willing to cut him some slack if he learns from it. But if we continue to do the same crap, I'll be pissed because the needs and solutions are obvious.

The first problem is that the team needs more playing time for Torres and Altidore. We also need to look at more CBs to back up Gooch and Bocanegra. Califf ain't the right guy. We need to get more natural wingers into our player pool to spread the field and take advantage of guys who are a threat in the air (Altidore, Ching, Bocanegra, Gooch). If Beasley and Dempsey are out of the game, our wing play consists of playing centermids out of position. That's not good.

We need less of Pearce and Califf. Sasha is clearly a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. It's obvious when he doesn't have it and when he doesn't have it, Bob needs to get him off the field ASAP.

Also, I am not saying Guzan won't turn out to be good. He's got some very promising physical tools to be a good GK. But I am very nervous to have him as a backup GK.

 

I completely disagree. For the first time in a long time, we are actually going out onto the field, regardless of the opponent, and trying to play soccer, in which we build from the back.

We not only beat Mexico last month, but we were able to control the tempo of the game, something that has never happened against mexico.

Posters are jumping on Bob Bradley's tactics leading to us drawing this game. Did BB tell Bease to give the ball away cheaply on the first goal, or have Pearce stand around and do absolutely nothing offensively or defensively?

Bob made changes when he needed to, and we came back from 2-0 down, in one of the most difficult places in Central America to play, and we were unlucky to not get the win in the end.

With Timmy in goal, Gooch back in defense, and Spector at left back, we would have won that game. Qualifying isn't easy, people need to realize that.

 

The problem was the player selection as much as it was the players themselves, how many times have I posted how Kljestan shoult NOT be played as a defensive midfielder? That game belonged to Torres from the time the schedule was announced, a player that has experience in these kinds of venues and has experience in important games that can acutally hold and move the ball vs an out of position MLSer with three games all year. Don't say that Ching is any good either, he did nothing Vs Sweden, Mexico, ES, Guatemala, etc. The only time he shows up is at the end routs. I don't give a **** how well he does the little things that add up to NOTHING. You can't tell me that Cooper wouldn't had created a more scoring opportunities on his own or finish some of the ones created for him.

Ching is garbage, the whole counter attacking/score on set plays B/S is garbage, the same old 4-4-1-1 is a garbage, the long ball B/S garbage, the whole "we're not good enough" b/s is garbage. We have the talent and as soon as they stepped into the field, with ther lack of PT and NT experience, did better than all those hacks in front of them only because they know coach better.

And please, ES tough? Concacaf is crap, yes you can't expect them to rollover for us like Mexico thinks they should, but we should be controlling this game and moving the ball around and CREATING opportunities, not booting the ball at Ching.

 

Yes. I truly do not understand Bradley's reluctance to start Parkhurst or Marshall. These are two players who at the very least know how to play the ball out of the back. Watch from about minute 60 on, and just count the number of times that Califf lobs the ball forward to absolutely no effect. He shouldn't even be our fourth center back, let alone our third.

(And this is not to pick on Califf, who I like from his time with San Jose. He's a fine club player, but on the international level he is simply too slow and doesn't have the kind of offensive skills that the team requires).

 

Dude, they play in MLS (Parkhurst until recently) and have no international experience, how wise do you think it would be to put start them in at an away game?

 

Combination of "dealt" and "death." Freudian slip, or new punishment?

Probably because your posting style invites controversy and makes things personal. Keith Olbermann gets better ratings than Rachel Maddow, but she's way better and more informative than him.

Karl, two things. First, please change the spelling of "surburban" in your location. It's driving me nuts.

Second, it's not Bradley's fault that Hejduk can't jump. But it IS his fault that it wasn't Spector or Wynne out there. It's not Bradley's fault that Kljestan played poorly. (And I like Sacha, somewhat.) It WAS his fault that Klejstan started instead of Torres.

We're not world-beaters, sure. But we have more talent than Bob puts out there, because Bob has his club of players he likes, and woe be unto he who tries to join the club.

One last thing...one thing the US is capable of is putting out a team that has alot of speed. And if you're going to play speedy guys, you need to supplement them with guys who excel at the risky, defense-splitting pass. But in the Bradley Era, we tend to take alot of time on the ball. Too much time. That's one thing Arena had over him; whenever Reyna was injured (insert joke here) we could move the ball quickly up the field and disbalance the defense.

 

There's nothing illuminating about saying we're just not that good in the abstract. What does it mean? As good as Brazil or Spain? As good as Belgium or Croatia?

Certainly we're good enough that we can and should beat El Salvador, even on the road. I'm surprised that no one's yet mentioned in this thread our win over them in last WCQ (semis), a breezy 2-0 in San Salvador (goals from McBride and Johnson, IIRC). And last time in WCQ near or around the same stage we absolutely destroyed a weak Central American team in Central America (3-0 over Panama).

So by any measure, the US played like shite last night and didn't get the result they should have. But this happens all the time in WCQ and other settings. The clearly superior team will win 9 of 10 times, but that also means that the clearly inferior team will win one of those ten.

Disappointing results happen, but they're not all bad news. It's early in WCQ, and there's still plenty of time to learn from the mistakes and get better. If anything, the way we coasted through WCQ last time may have left the team a bit complacent by the time the WC rolled around. Contrast with the 2002 edition of the USMNT, which struggled to qualify but seemed much hungrier when the actual WC rolled around.

And while it's embarrassing to give up any goals to ES, let alone two, there's good things to be taken away. I liked the fight and grit that got us back to 2-2, and that might give us momentum and intensity for the mid-week T&T match. Way too early to panic or freak out. Now if we look that crappy and fail to get a decent result against T&T, that might be cause for concern.