I agree let's do more with more. That's a great goal for the future, but the OP was talking about this tournament. Are the teams you mentioned more skilled and better than the USA? Absolutely. Does that mean the USA didn't have a great opportunity to be in the quarters. Of course not. They has a great shot to down Belgium at the end there, and a different tactical approach probably should have been considered. Belgium is better, but they're not 26 shots to 8 shots better. The Argentina defensive approach was appropriate. We played right in to Belgium's game plan, and Howard was the difference between 0-0 and 3-0.
Great argument, one can compare the squads of Costa Rica and Netherlands, the latter clearly star-studded. Why does that end up in a draw?
I have to say, Costa Rica's players looked far more comfortable on the ball than the U.S. players. They have a very good team, and they played better than we did in Brazil. The U.S. is 13-13-5 all-time against the Ticos. The only time we've played them in Costa Rica and not lost was a 1-1 draw in 1985 (out of 9 matches, they've outscored us 20 to 7; 9 to 2 in our last three qualifiers there). They've also managed to do something we've never done: They've beaten Mexico in a WC qualifier at Azteca.
Because in soccer, if you are resolute defensively and have a great keeper and a lucky day you can stone anybody. In an event like the WC there is a cost associated with that style though. CR imo was a much better side than Greece. Greece was able to wear out Costa Rica, being a man up for nearly an hour, that they were able to take away CR's attack in the next round. CR had to sub out Joe who was their target man and possibly best player because he had absolutely nothing left. CR was able to stone NED through a combination of resolute play (taking all eleven men this time) and luck. Their only shot on goal came in ET. That is not a viable strategy to win the WC. So are you guys suggesting we play to win *a* game or we play to win the cup because you cant have it both ways. To suggest that CR's strategy to play for penalties because they couldn't compete is to suggest that we stunt our development as a program. I want to move forward. I respect their resolve but they resorted to lalasball and failed in the resulting lottery. Good riddance. They are much better than that.
In general yes they had a better brazil but their performance in the quarters was an insult to the rest of their event.
I agree that their match against Holland wasn't as good as their other performances. However, IMHO, they played the Dutch better than we played the Belgians.
I have to disagree with you there. We were not playing for penalties. I think CR was playing for penalties from the start. Intent matters. The stat line is probably equally dominating bar the lopsided possession stats but we kept Belgium to mainly low percentage chances. The dutch mainly had high percentage chances and hit the woodwork several time from point blank range. CR also did not miss sitters because they never created real chances from the run of play. We missed several. We tried to go forward and lose the midfield battle but they kept a really high line and a really low front line. I think they chose a better strategy for their game but I also wish we had more players with their comfort on the ball. Our guys looked like schoolchildren out there in terms of ball handling. CR was able to play their way out of trouble in 1v1 and odd man situations with ease when Netherlands weren't in on goal which was quite a lot, actually.
The only time the Nats ever looked like they were one of the best and most talented teams was U-20 2007. Other than that, this is the same team. I am glad we actually try to control possession more than we used to. We look like a real soccer team, we just aren't that good.
They always have looked more comfortable on the ball. I would say the solid central American teams have always looked more comfortable on the ball since I can remember than the US.
If only we could take their ball skills, our infrastructure and resources, their passion of the game, our gene pool(variety)... We'd always be contending for a world cup. Every friggin cycle we'd make the semis. Can't have it all I guess...
Then we would be awesome. People act like Saprissa doesn't dominate the CONCACAF. Costa Rica has always had a lot of talent. They just lack international depth. When Joel wasn't 100%, there offense was meh, when he came out, it was terrible. They are too starter heavy. That's always been Costa Rica's problem. Now, they have international talent but lack depth. Honestly, starting wise, the US and Costa Rica is neck and neck but the depth we have is night and day better. Our bench players is just as talented as our starters. We aren't a very talented group but we are a very deep group.
Sure, and Italy, Spain, England, are more skilled and deeper than USA... but couldn't make it out of their group while the USA were 30 seconds from qualifying comfortably possibly letting starters rest. Maybe if Altidore didn't get injured, we'd be in the semi-finals. It's the roll of the dice, the Ticos had better luck than us... thats all. But our quality isn't there yet, where we are EXPECTED to make the semi's. That's all.
Belgium's GD in the group stage was 4:1, with their only GA coming from a boneheaded PK giveaway by Vertonghen. They created a ton of chances against Russia and then beat South Korea playing a man down. In the Round of 16 vs. the USA, the shots were roughly 2:1 in their favor and about the same went for the legitimate goal scoring chances. In the quarters vs. Argentina, they were a bit unlucky to give up the first goal - who knew Pipita Higuain had more skills than Chris Wondolowski - they then had to go against a bunker-and-counter Argentina side and had little plan for it. In the tied game, Argentina probably would have had to come out more and leave the Belgians with more space. As it was, Sabella's plan was perfect and Wilmots did not know how to adjust. The Dutch approach was closer to Argentina's than to Belgium's. They chose to mostly defend and counter. That worked fine vs. Spain but then van Gaal had to switch to 3-4-3 vs. Australia when they went a goal down. A GK gaffe helped them get all 3 points there. Once again, being down a goal to Mexico forced van Gaal to go to a more aggressive 3-4-3 and they barely managed to snatch a win there. Today, their approach was very tactical - overload the right, pass from the left; otherwise retreat and try an over the top lob to Robben or Kuyt. The strategy almost worked, as the goal scoring chances were ~ 8:1 in their favor. On a normal day, this is a 3;0 route. An early goal and Costa Rica can't bunker and the Dutch will have a ton of counters. But they couldn't convert the goal scoring chances and that's how it goes sometimes. To give credit to Costa Rica, they were very sound positionally and much stronger on the ball than the US backline. Robben and Kuyt still managed a number of dribbles but CR rotated very well toward the ball and van Persie had a horrible time converting his opportunities. On the attack, Campbell, Bolanos and Urena were also much better in holding the ball and trying to create something against the superior numbers. Overall, I would say that the US played much better vs. Belgium than Costa Rica vs. the Netherlands, although the final score did not reflect that. With Navas between the sticks, Pinto played for the PK's and got there. Klinsmann tried to be more aggressive and nearly snatched a win in regular time and then a similar PK shootout.
The roll of the ball in the US-Belgium match was neutral. The better side won ... but the US could have made it different. BTW, Costa Rica was hugely underrated. That team must be impossible to scout, given where its players are employed and how rarely the team plays major international opposition. That was a tremendous factor in their favor.
This post hits the nail on the head. For a couple of minutes early in the game, Belgium was attacking and holding the ball well. But after just a short time, Argentina turned the tide and put Belgium on their heals. Argentine ball retention was sublime. It struck me how little zusi and Bedoya were able to contribute in this regard. I think Argentina would have rolled us, barring some sort celestial miracle.
Not sure why everyone is so scared of Argentina. They have looked mediocre and lucked out to be this far. We could have beat this team, handily. It wouldn't be easy, but our team could have done it.
Well an uncalled PK for CR against Greece probably cost them a comfortable 90 min, rest time, a red card, and yellow card suspensions. Then 2 uncalled PKs against Holland, both with much more contact than the Marquez-Robben PK, did not help them either. Nobody has been f*ucked more that CR with 4 uncalled PKs in their 5 games. With competent/unbiased refs, they probably show better than they did against Holland.