Tonight's awful lineup and negative performance retriggered the Saprissa feeling in me, so I thought I would throw this out (looking for thoughtful responses)... Understanding there are a number of teams (e.g. Brazil, Argentina, etc.) where this strategy is appropriate, why do we come out in a "tie is a good result" posture against much of CONCACAF? The U.S. is the best or second-best team in the region -- why can't we impose our will on teams regardless of locale? It's baffling to me that we often go in with a defeatist posture and "hope" to grab a cheap counter-attack goal. We're better than practically every team in the region, even away from home -- can't we act like it? (Note: This is not bashing Jamaica's quality -- it's always been a tough place to play and they are big and physical, which gives the U.S. issues. It's more a global mentality question.)
Because it is far more important not to lose on the road than it is to win. Six games, nine points at home, three on the road is a great bet at pulling through. In the early going, a road loss isn't a death, but an early tie against the top comp in the group is huge, as it not only earns a point but denies them 2 home pts. Beyond that, I'm trying to think of the national sides who play successful, attacking soccer on the road in Qs. The really good Brazil teams do, I suppose, but the last batch didn't, not in the Qs, where they struggled. The perception is that Argentina does, but I've watched them bunker on the road a number of times. Maybe Holland, but they failed to qualify last time. Regardless, the teams that do would be those whose strength is in attack. Our strength builds from the back. LD, mcb And while I don't think Concacaf is the strongest of regions, that doesn't make Qs easy, A breakdown of US and Jamaican talent does not leave an overhwhelming gap in the US favor. The US is a better team, I'd think, but by how much? I'd be surprised if we're not more lively against panama, but would you be more devastated to see us get off 25 great shots and get robbed on the road, or play conversatively and earn the point. The whole point of the Qs is to survive them. There are no style points given.
I also think field and weather conditions had a lot to do with it - Windy as heck as usual - And the field (although better than previously) still was lousy - EVERYBODY was having trouble keeping their footing - Sorry - But Jamaica is used to these conditions and plays a big physical bouncy ball game as a result - And they also seem to be lucky at it - But then sometimes its better to be lucky than to be good The US play depends on a quick passing game with build up and runs - Certainly the last 20 minutes of the 1st Half showed that - As the color guy pointed out, the US was committing to the attack with speed just not with numbers - (E.G., Stewart just missed a beautiful run onto a cross from Donovan - He was so close he had to slow a bit to stay onside and then didn't have the burst to get to ball when he needed it - But the attack was only two guys)
I wasn't referring to last night specifically, although I believe a lot of sentiments around here would be different had it stayed 0-1. I would rather play to win and let the cards fall where they may. Jamaica is not much inferior to the U.S., especially when they are at home, but I don't see the point of tactically TRYING to tie (through lineup choice, aggression, etc). I would rather have 25 shots on goal and see what happens. The result last night probably means the U.S. will go through. I just don't like the way we went about our business. No aggression, no cohesiveness, a lineup that featured a brutal midfield and LD as an attacker against a team he needed to play AM or RM against. Against the best teams in the region, this "pray for a point" strategy doesn't work (see Azteca, Saprissa 2001). We're not good enough or consistent enough defensively to bunker for 90 mins and hope to draw. Why not play your game then and impose your will on other teams? Let them feel the pressure of playing at home and having to defend? I just don't get it. You don't have to attack for the full 90, but don't concede two points before the game starts.
I agree with you, play to win, then adjust as the game goes on. Play the best players. I think that "experience" is getting a bit too much attention on this US National Team. Ernie Stewart? Please. Was once one of the best US players, but his time has passed him buy. Please retire. In yesterday's game, I thought that Arena made some poor choices in tactics and lineup. LD needs to face the goal, from attacking midfielf or on the right side of midfield. That is where he is most effective, able to use his speed and touch. Why not this lineup to start yesterday's game: keller hejduk, pope, boca, vanney LD, reyna, armas, DMB McB, Ching Here is the answer: Arena is afraid of putting new players into the mix (he would NEVER start someone like Ching, because of this "experience" thing). I don't get it. Think back to USA vs. MEX in Columbus. The only reason Wolff went into the game, and thus starting getting playing time, was due to an injury to McB (remember that eye?!?) The only reason Pablo got into the games during the World Cup was due to the injury to Armas. Pablo never got a chance, even during friendlies, because Armas was ALWAYS on the field.
We had as many shots, and more shots on goal. We had more corner kicks. Jamaica committed more fouls. Your adjectives are subjective, but the objective stats from the game indicate that your premise is wrong.
The reason the US team does this is that they are better than these other teams, but not THAT much better, and this is particularly true on the road. This causes the other teams to pack the box and adopt a counteratacking strategy. This will often work because the US simply doesn't have enought players with the ball skills required to play possession ball against this type of defense, and create chances with short passes and clever runs. This is not true for other international teams (like Brazil and Argentina). As a result, the US has 2 choices. Using arbitrary percentages to prove my point, they can play attacking football and win 50% of the time, but lose 30% of the time, or they can play conservative football and win 30% of the time but lose only 10% of the time. For a team like the US, whether they draw or win on the road in WCQ against the stronger teams in the group almost ensure advancement, while losses could put advancement in jeapordy, thus the choice to play conservative, safe (ugly, unfun) football last night.
I agree with your general premises, although the percentages you worked out yield 17 points per 10 games for attacking football and 15 points per 10 games for conservative football (given that the oppts earn 11 points in the aggressive scenario and 9 points in the conservative, so it's a wash). I believe our inability to play a short passing, attacking game on the road is much more to do with our lineup selection and posture than it is we lack the creative players to do it. Even DMB looked scared to run at anyone last night, lest he lose the ball and trigger a counterattack. You think that was all his decision to stop playing the way he normally does and float crosses into the mixer?
I don't think we played "defeatist" soccer last night--the possession was fairly even. The thing is that this game was by far the toughest test we'll face in the semifinal round. Not that Bruce and the boys can, of course, but as fans we can pretty much pencil in 11 points in the last 5 matches (wins at home vs. ES and home and away vs. Panama, draws at ES and home vs. Jamaica), and I'd say we have better than a 50-50 shot to get the maximum 15 points.
Yes, we will rewrite the Constitution to reflect that any vote by you three alone constitutes the will of the people. The fact is, we played pretty well considering the terrible line-up. These guys have zero chemistry built up because Bruce hasn't thought to play this way in recent memory. If this is the squad/formation that Bruce is set on for qualifying he should be ashamed that he hasn't assembled it during the friendlies this past year.
The percentages were obviously arbitrary, but the higher point total in the attacking football was deliberate. The point I was trying to make is that the only way the US doesn't advance is if they lose their road games against the good teams. In other words, as long as they AT LEAST draw their road games they should move on. Using my arbitrary numbers, conservative football gives them a 90% chance of this while aggressive gives them a 70% chance. While aggressive gives them the best chance to get the most points, concervative gives them the least chance of completely screwing things up and not making the world cup. I agree that part of the problem is squad selection. Donovan should NEVER play up front against teams that are going to pack the box. He is one of the US's few players with enough creative and skillfull enough to generate chances from the midfield while playing possession football, and that is just completely lost when he is up front. Reyna obviously has the ability to play the possession game if he has the right people around him, but last night he did not. That was never Stewart's game, even before he started aging in dog years, Armas is pretty good at winning the ball, but once he has it often doesn't know what to do with it. DmB, while one of the better players on the team , has skills better suited to a vertical game, though this might change some with his experience in Europe. I don't want this to come off as an attack on US players, because I love the team and am very excited about the progress that they have made over the past 10 years. I just think that in order to really play possession football and consistently beat teams that are packing the box you need all 4 players in the midfield to have the passing and ball control skills that Reyna has. And it wouldn't hurt to have a couple of defenders having those skills as well. One day soon this will be the case for the USMNT, but I don't think we're quite there yet.
I think you should always play for a win, especially when you have the better players. Take the game to them. I think we could have done this if Armas wasn't on the field. With him out there, it is like playing a man down. It is hard to go for the win with one less player than the other team.
And I want no poeple writing anything defending Armas. Anyone who thinks Armas can play at this level knows nothing about the game of soccer.
Because he could foresee that Klein, Casey, and Wolff would be injured. I think the original poster is missing the entire mindset that the team had during the Jamaica game. 1) We were going against the wind and Bruce wanted to play somewhat conservatively with that in the first half. 2) Our offense was supposed to be in transition with Stewart, Donovan, and DMB running the channels while McBride glued them together. Donovan, Stewart, McBride and Reyna had subpar games and that caused us to look inept offensively. 3) We were playing to keep shape and deny space for the opponent foremost. We weren't playing to tie we were playing to deny them scoring opportunities. The difference is that we truly were trying to attack with midfielders and sometimes defenders. We just did it poorly. If you are trying to play for the tie then your right back doesn't end up near your opponent's cornerflag a halfdozen times. Are we happy to draw matches on the road? At this point in qualifying there is no reason not to be. Until we give up points at home then merely getting any result on the road is fine. Bruce wants to put us in a place to win and draw a lot of the road games. Someone posted in this thread about how most teams play a more counterattacking game on the road including teams like Brazil and Argentina at times. Road games are just tough. In the hex when we are playing in Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, Jamaica, and T&T it is going to be really hard to win road games. If you can win 1 road game and draw 2 you are most likely going to the world cup. Let's just say that realistically beating T&T on the road and drawing to Jamaica and then either Honduras or Guatemala is probably our best shot of getting those points. If we get 5 points there and win 3 and draw 2 at home we end up with 16 points and that is most likely what it will take to advance (Honduras was 4th last time with 14 points). Having said that it is also tactical to slow the game down on the road to make the game less of a fitness contest where the crowd seems to be able to energize tired players more. Any way you look at it the road games are not going to be easy and to expect us to beat teams on the road in the Hex is a bit much. When we start seeing the phantom offsides, take downs in the box not called for us, and PKs called when our defenders clear balls with their heads we will understand that road games are rough in every way.
This argument doesn't hold much sway with me. We're better than the other teams in our group, but not that much better. At least not the way we're playing right now. I'd say we'll be lucky to get 9 points at home this round. Jamaica, El Salvador, and Panama will all be playing for the road draw as well, and my bet is that at least one of them will be able to achieve a draw when they visit us. However, as long as the other teams in our group all play respectably, the play for a win-at-home, draw-on-the-road should work fine. But should one team, say Panama, lose most of its games but manage to tie us, we could find ourselves in a world of hurt.
I will echo my fellow Penn Quaker and say, this is a good post. It not only gets at the heart of Arena's decision making regarding CONCACAF road games, but I believe that it is also a trenchant analysis of Donovan's role for the U.S.
True. Our real problem is finishing, or even taking the quality chances we have. Donovan and Reyna are very, very guilty of this, but it's symptomatic of the entire squad. Mathis and Ching are the only ones who have a scorers mentality and only one fits Bruce's system now, Ching. I will say that DMB is starting to get a bit selfish at times around goal and I mean that as a compliment. He's not the best at striking on target, but he at least tries. If more of our players would actually shoot from 20 yards on in when they have a chance I think we'd see more rebounds etc. Plus the knowledge that we won't simply look to pass the ball 18 times in the box looking for the perfect tap-in as it seems we do now would bring bunker defenses out more. In the end these players are what they are and we'll have to live with it until more true scorers develop.
I'm not so sure. Consider the following: US: home - 2 wins & 1 draw; Away - away 3 draws = 10 points Panama: 5 loses; home draw with the US = 1 point Team A: 2 wins vs. Panama, 2 draws vs. US = 8 points (2 games in hand) Team B: 2 wins vs. Panama, a draw and a loss vs. US = 7 points (2 games in hand) If either game between Jamaica & El Salvador (teams A & B) end in a tie, both can't pass the US, so the US advances. If Jamaica wins one and El Salvador wins the other, then Team A finishes with 11 points and Team B with 10. I'm not sure if the tie break is Head to Head(HH) or Goal Differential(GD). If it is HH, the US advances. If it is GD, Team B has to overcome at least a 3 goal deficit; US is at least +1 vs. team B = 2 goals and team B is at least -1 vs. team A. What the US is doing is a very conservative approach, but it is also a relatively safe one - keep in mind that the above is the worst case. The reason this is "safe" is that getting the same 10 points with three wins and a draw; will lead to both Jamaica & El Salvador finishing ahead of the US unless one of them wins both home and away against the other.
But this doesn't disprove the thesis. As the #10 team in the world, the U.S. can and should be expected to outperform the #54 team, even when on the road. It is quite possible that the U.S. played too conservatively ("defeatist" strikes me as too strong a word) in making the match roughly even. That Bruce Arena and most U.S. fans do not expect to beat Jamaica in Kingston is puzzling. In the '02 qualifiers, Costa Rica beat Jamaica in Kingston. Mexico beat Jamaica in Kingston. Among teams that advanced to the World Cup, only the U.S. failed to beat Jamaica in Kingston. Perhaps that is because we are very satisfied with a lesser result?