What To Make Of This: England vs. Jamaica {R}

Re: What To Make Of This {R}

Jamaica looked great for the first five minutes of this game. Just like they did against the USMNT in Cary. Our side broke down though in their match. After the first five, England showed how to finish, putting six in the net. We only got a tie when Ricketts bobbled an average shot. After seeing the scorelines and some warm up matches by CONCACAF teams these past few weeks, you'd be hard pressed to find a positive outside of Mexico's. I am going to ignore all friendlies, because I value my mental health.

 

I wouldn't worry and if you need a boost of confidence watch the USA 2002 WC Q-final game vs. Germany again... this game gives a more realistic view of how the US will do in this year's World Cup..rather than comparing friendlies vs. Jamica the USA... by all accounts the uSA outplayed the bigger and more skillful Germans.. Also fyi...8 of the USA players that played in that game (Pope, Lewis, Reyna, Donovan, McBride, O'Brien, Mastro, etc.) are on this year's WC roster.. Arena and over 10 players on the WC roster have played in the WC before and that experience will be huge...ag

 

Re: What To Make Of This {R}

we've bitched slapped Jamaica i too, I remember a 5-0 bitchslapping in our favor before the 2002 WC. This result doesnt mean anything. Hell, Brazil only beat Jamaica 1-0 not to long ago in that friendly that was played in England. Don't put any stock in this match.

 

Re: What To Make Of This {R}

I hope you remember that we played our B/C MLS team in that game vs. Jamaica w/Meola starting in goal!! And yes back in 2002 as one of our final WC warm ups we clobbered Jamaica 5-0...so like the previous poster wrote..don't worry about these friendlies... what counts are the WC games beginning 6/12 vs the Czech Rep...ag

 

Re: What To Make Of This {R}

This discussion is irrelevant. Football is not math. The world cup is another stage. Thanks God YOU guys are not representing the US in Germany otherwise you'd be shaking .....

 

Re: What To Make Of This {R}

As pointed out earlier, we thumped Jamaica 5-0 before Japorea.

England dismantled them today as well but one glaring difference remains. The Jamaica team that took the field today was much more civil and referential in terms of treatment of the England players than they were back in 02' in the Meadowlands.

That day, no less than 4 American players went down with injuries (Vanney - out for the Cup due to a late challenge; Keller - injury cost him starting position; Sanneh - not much there; Mathis - came in as second half sub then got subbed out due to injury). All that and a few Jamaicans should have seen red with late aggressive challenges.

 

Re: What To Make Of This {R}

What positive result did Mexico have? I have seen them lose to France and I also watched the Holland game and the Dutch had about 75% possession.

 

Re: What To Make Of This {R}

True that. By the way , did anyone dare to compare MEXICO-VENEZUELA (1-0, goal scored from a controversial penalty) to USA-VENEZUELA (2-0)? We should have been the seeded team in Group D (Mexico's group).

 

I think it's been clear from the get go that a) it's a tough group and b) the US can get out, but it's not assured at all. If the US advances, the USMNT will earn some real respect for good reason. I think the 5050 club includes a lot of people who know their stuff and have been very thoughtful about the whole thing. It's realistic and as good as can be asked for. As has been pointed out, the US - CzR match is THE toughest match of the first round according to the (dodgy) FIFA rankings pitting #2 vs #5 and those aren't even the seeded teams! It's a tough trial by fire, getting two of the top European sides in a European cup, so yeah, it'll be tough. But the US stands a reasonable chance of succeeding. It's a horse race, and a great measuring stick. If the US advances, or even hits the quarters, we're likely to be seeded in 2010. Think about those stakes. This is a tough group, but it's the strong hurdle the US needs. It'll be tough, but if the US really is getting better, we can pull it out. This is a stepping stone to big power status. Frankly, if the US advances, we'll be able to claim fairly that the US would be a good bet to qualify from Europe and even do well in the European Championships etc. Fears are warranted, but so are hopes.

 

Well said!

 

No.

 

Re: What To Make Of This {R}

today both Terry and Ashley Cole went out in the 35thminute due to injury...

 

Re: What To Make Of This {R}

A more tangential result is that the US lost to England (if friendly results mean anything and I don't think they do) and tied Jamaica twice in the WCQ 1:1.

However, the US did prevail 3:1 in the Gold Cup match where 'Dolo was spiked in his knee and yellow cards were aplenty.

 

Ricketts was TERRIBLE in this match and his defenders were out of position on a couple of the goals.... plus they had 2 own goals. Only one MLS player was on the roster... don't we have 3 or 4 first-teamers on the squad.

It was a fun game to watch, but about what I expected out of it. Jamaica played good offense and horrid defense... the US could've beaten this Jamaica side 6-0 as well.

 

Unless I'm forgetting a game or two, from what I recall, we always tend to struggle with Jamaica as they tend to be extremely physical and our players have never really responded well to that. Generally speaking from what I remember, we beat them at home, usually by a goal, always seem to tie them away, and have two spankings to our credit against them in memory (last year in the Gold Cup, and the 5-0 win everyone is mentioning).

The last 11 results (to get a full 10 I had to include both qualifyer results from Sampson's campaign in '97):

1-1 '06
3-1 '05
1-1 '04Q away
1-1 '04Q
2-1 '03 away
5-0 '02
0-0 '01Q away
2-1 '01Q
2-2 '99 away
0-0 '97Q away
1-1 '97Q

As you can see, we almost never blow out Jamaica. So many have short memories for whatever reasons, suffice it to say, the 1-1 draw was ugly, and on a small field, and featured a blend of backups, non-roster players and starters, but it wasn't out of keeping with what happens when we play Jamaica. The games tend to be very ugly, low scoring, and disjointed with us having trouble getting continuity do to constant fouling, and the quick recovery abilities of many of the more athletic Jamaican players.

All in all, compared results aren't very important, for just as the England match can be used to suggest that we'd get throttled by England, Mexico's wins over Brazil in recent years suggest we could beat Brazil on any given day with a little bit of luck, when the truth is that while we could beat them, they'd come out ahead probably 7-9 times out of ten.

The truth is, certain styles work well or work badly against other styles depending on the team. England has achieved marvelous results over the years but still struggles with Sweden whether Sweden is playing beautiful soccer or very mediocre ball. Why? There's simply something in the match up or perhaps it's just a fluke, but it is a reality. We can put the wood to Mexico virtually any time we play them away from Azteca, and yet Mexico has traditionally fared far, far better against Europe both in Europe and outside of Europe than we have. Why? Who knows. Something in the match up.

Anyone and their mother and 10 random cousins knows Senegal is better than Togo, but Togo is in the world cup. Why? Who knows? Something in that match up this cycle, the African Cup of Nations reinforced that Senegal was the superior side but too little too late for them. Ditto Angola, that has been throttled left and right in the rup up to the cup, and yet bizarrely kept Nigeria out of the cup. Cameroon losing out to Ivory Coast is a bit more understandable, Ivory Coast has been getting better and better for at least the past six years, while Cameroon should have advanced (lost out due to a bizarre missed PK that is still a controversy), but either advancing would not have been a surprise, ditto Ghana finishing ahead of a slumping Ghana. However just as often there are situations like Togo and Senegal, Nigeria and Angola, England and Sweden, USA and Jamaica, or even in our own confederations how well Honduras plays against ourselves and Mexico, but then can only come away with one win in four games against Guatemala and Canada, two teams they appear clearly better than. Sometimes teams just don't match up well with certain opponents, or for whatever reason just seem jinxed when they face off against them.

We could be depressed about the performanced we had against Jamaica compared to Ghana or England, but I don't see much point in it. We simply struggle against Jamaica. We're also clearly the better side 4 wins, and no losses across those ten years, but as those 7 ties can attest too, while we know how to lock them up, they also generally speaking know how to avoid losing against us. In the end I think it's just a combination of factors that are beyond me, as well as the fact that their tactics match up well in frustrating our play. From time to time, we render their tactics immaterial (throttling them in 2 of the last 6 times we've played them, but just as often their tactics prove effective, whether Bruce or Sampson is the coach.

 

Ricketts had an okay game, he could hardly be blamed for the goals, Jamaica scored one ownl goal, one of Crouch's goals went in off a massive deflection and it's not easy to tell whether it was goalward bound or not, but as is generally the case the attacker was awarded the goal by the benefit of the doubt.

I don't know the Jamician side inside out, but it was a good approximation of a first string team at least, defintely stronger than they fielded in their last game against USA.

Whether or not USA could've beaten Jamaica 6-0 today is debatable, but the results nothing to worry about.

 

All I got out of this match is that Brit drummers need a little work on their beats.

Damn, the cheers are straight four-fours and headbanging loud.

Drop it on the 2 and check Brazil for reference.

 

Having seen highlights, the difference between England and the US is that the English players do a lot of one-time shooting. No one needs to settle the ball to have a go at it. They see the light between themselves and the goal within the twenty and off it goes.

 

Having seen the entire match, and attended the US/Jamaica match this year, the difference was that Jamaica cam out and pushed players forward early and late, creating a lot of room for England. They played into their hands. In between, they didn't give up any goals.

Also, it's easy to see that England move the ball better than we do. They all look far more comfortable near the goal with the ball at their feet. Could be because they didn't expect Jamacia to defend very physically. Being only 1 week prior to England's first WC match, I'm pleased to say that Jamaica obliged and played like wimps (which is exactly what they should have done).

 

Or maybe the English team has both a better transition and "half-court" game.

I mean, if you bunker up against them, they'll have Beckham cross it to Peter "Mr. Roboto" Crouch. If you press high, Stevie Gerrard will spring Michael Owen clean to beat the offside trap.

If you commit fouls, Beckham will curl it and Lampard will hammer it on the frame.

If you sit back and give up space 20-25 yards away from goal, Lampard and Gerrard will launch rockets on goal.

If you overplay the middle, England will swing the ball to the left (Joe Cole) or right (Beckham).

Heck, with this lineup, Rooney doesn't even fit in.

 

Yes, my main question is that did the Jamaican's play like complete pushovers for England due to their much greater respect, or did it really have to do with the amount of time before the WC?

I can't remember the last time, friendly or not, the Jamaican's haven't had multiple yellow card offenses (awarded or not) in each half. Hacks, elbows, tackles from behind, late tackles...

Not to take anything away from England - they were finishing and moving the ball superbly - but it would be nice to see Jamaica them play this cleanly every game.