TO:SIDEFOOTSITTER Clone Messi and Di Maria yes the rest you can keep.. I will take a JJ over Marscherano, Biglia anyday! I will take Gonzo over Demichelis,Garay anyday! I will take Demps over Lavezzi too! I will take Howard over there keeper...whatever his name is too! Damn wish the game had been played!
Argentina could well be in the final are you comparing our talent to theirs? Really? If Cr7 was able to cut through our back-line like warm butter and he was injured, what do you think Messi and Di Maria would have done?
You think JJ or Dreadbecks was scared of Messi?Please!!! You think a young kid like Yeldin would be scared of Di Maria... I wanted to see those match ups! Not our fault the mastermind JK picked the wrong line up and tactics for the Belgium game.
I fail to see what this rebuttal has to do with my post, the point of which was to enquire as to why the US got so badly outplayed by a team who misfired in every other game they played in this tournament. I didn't even mention Argentina specifically so I can only assume that you quoted the wrong post.
Looking at the bright side of the Belgium experience, it may give Howard a chance of becoming the 2nd American to ever be named in a FIFA All-Tournament Team for the World Cup.
Belgium won its three group matches without giving up a single goal in the run of play. The fact that they did that while apparently underperforming shows the difference in class between them and a U.S. team that had to bust ass to make it out of the group on goal differential. The elite teams are able to make it out of the group stage while underperforming. The U.S. can't afford that. Once you reach the knockout stages, that's when the top teams shift into another gear, while the other teams fizzle out.
It's partly indicative of the fact that Belgium had a substantially easier group to qualify out of. The question remains, why was the US the only team that made the Belgians look like world champions elect?
Jesus christ this guy can't be serious. Howard saves the game from being a 5 to 0 scoreline all game and somehow Belgium are the chumps? Argentina easily handled Belgium. Put it together in your head and figure it out.
The U.S. is sorely lacking in technical players capable of maintaining possession under pressure at this level.
Did you not watch the Belgium v. Russia or Belgium v. Korea matches? Belgium only scored one goal in both those matches, but owned those guys, particularly the Koreans even though they were playing with 10 men and with SIX starters sitting. Look at the clubs for those Belgian players that started against us on Tuesday. There's a reason those guys are playing for the top clubs in the world while our starters play in MLS. We were lucky they didn't drop 5 goals on us.
It has nothing to do with tactics. Belgium is a better team, hands down. Anyone who says anything other than that is a fool. Could they have been beaten? Yes, especially given their recent run of form. If both teams hypothetically play their best would we stand a shot? No. Belgium decided to show up at the US game. They probably were savoring the opportunity knowing they would play us if we advanced. The last time we played Belgium they destroyed us and we looked out of our league truthfully, the 4-2 scoreline didn't tell the whole story. The Belgium game was really just a continuation of our last friendly... and from my memory we did attempt to play more open in the friendly against them, it didn't work.
Argentina made good on their chances. I don't think that we have the quality up-front to generate a goal like Higuain's. That said, we could have replicated their defensive performance. Belgium cannot break a compact defense down to save their lives. They rely on the fast break, and Argentina denied them that, making them look extremely pedestrian. It was probably the wrong tactical approach by Klinsmann and co., though I think they had a great tournament overall. Oh well, you can't get every call right. We were still in a position to win in the 93d minute and flubbed our best chance. We didn't deserve the win. It's that simple. Those of you writing these narratives about how Belgium and Argentina are in "another league" are smoking crack. Costa Rica just took the Netherlands to penalties, and went 2-0-2 against "top 10" teams in this tournament. This was a parity-driven tournament. Some teams clearly have more talent, but there's no doubt the Americans could have beaten Argentina.
It's so parity driven, that the same 4 semi-finalists as usual: Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Netherlands. We could have beaten Belgium, sure. We could have beaten Argentina on a one-off. But beating Belgium AND Argentina one after another? Not likely. Costa Rica was outstanding, but it showed you how no matter how disciplined, hard-working your team is... you have to have the quality of depth and to finish your chances. Netherlands had luxury of bringing on a Goal Keeper that specializes for penalty situations. That's quality of depth right there.
Belgium had tons of talent out there today but as a team, they lacked a lot to be desired. People bring up talent all the time as if it refutes arguments but the USA's forte is teamwork to begin with or at least has been and should be.
It seems the detractors use ad hominem attacks and just throw out talent as the benchmark of success. I can look at the roster of Costa Rica and compare it to the Dutch. Netherlands could only draw Costa Rica. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#Costa_Rica 'Nuff said.
Come one now. Let's be realistic. We couldn't get pass Belgium. Let's just leave it at that. I guess Mexico could have beaten the Dutch, and Algeria could have beaten Germany per your logic.
I suspect we would've needed one of those perfect games Klinsi was referring to before the start of the Cup. And with Altidore's injury alone that was never going to happen. Add up the other problems that plagued us this tournament, and we would've needed a hugely drastic turnaround.
Tactics and talent are not mutually exclusive factors in determining a teams success and to attribute that abomination of a performance (from a US perspective) entirely to the difference in talent is a gross oversimplification. Are Belgium more talented than the US? Absolutely, but not to the extent that the game became shooting practice for them.
My argument isn't that there aren't better teams. Clearly, there are, and the last four standing are truly deserving. That said, plenty of very talented teams exited before us, or at the same time. Where's Spain? Italy? And the poster child for this argument: England? USA doesn't have their talent, but we're certainly more skilled and deeper than CRC. Again, the relative parity is high. It's not enough to be supremely talented (Belgium), supremely organized (Costa Rica), or supremely gutsy (USA). You need to have a good measure of all three qualities. USA had enough of them for a realistic Semis run. They didn't execute. But the fact that they could definitely use more talent doesn't mean that they could plausibly win with what they had.
More skilled, tactically speaking, going forward? OK. Better on the ball? No, not really. More resolute in defense? Debatable. I think we should be scheduling more friendlies with CR and Mexico. Clearly we are the three kings of CONCACAF and are all getting better. "You need to have a good measure of all three qualities. USA had enough of them for a realistic Semis run. They didn't execute. But the fact that they could definitely use more talent doesn't mean that they could plausibly win with what they had." According to who? If you think we are in the domain of Nederlands, Germany, Argentina or Brazil then I am not sure how to frame a response in a way that will not get me booted off this website. I strongly, strongly disagree. Besides, it is important to be able to win ugly but if you are relying on it as a matter of course like CR did today, you will surely get what's coming to you. Instead of trying to do more with less, lets worry about how to do more with more.