You have to factor in the pitch. I agree, Gomez and Dempsey were probably the most disappointing on the field today. However, everyone, both teams here, were having trouble controlling that ball. 20-30 mph winds? Rain? I couldnt see well but some said there were puddles of water? I'm personally going to withhold opinion on players ball control until they're on a field that's not completely working against them. EJ's ball control has been excellent in Seattle matches.
Eddie was terrible on the wing but managed to get on the end of two crosses, which is all that matters in the end. If he's going to start against Guatemala, put him up front where Gomez was. Gomez really struggled, his touch was awful on the couple chances he had. Pretty much everyone struggled, hopefully some home cooking will get them ready for Guatemala.
This is correct. 13 of his 14 international goals have come against lower to mid-range CONCACAF teams.
Overall it was not the best performance by USA, but we still managed to pull out the win, which is the most important part right now, right?
I hope this is right--I've never quite understood what made EJ fade away after his early promise (does anyone?), but I've always suspected it was that his success came too quickly and at too young an age, so that he might have taken stuff for granted, not worked hard enough, been petulant, etc. He's got enough left in the tank that it's at least plausible to think that with some maturity he could still be effective for the US, especially when played in his true position (which he wasn't tonight despite his success in front of goal).
like i said, it wouldn't have mattered what players were out there in the positions klinsmann set up, and playing with the tactics he rolled out. no amount of mentality or pace of game would've led to success in klinsmann's system tonight. and tonight was no aberration btw, we've looked like crap for several games on end now. we're regressing at a depressing rate.
For me, Eddie was the only one who looked dangerous and he scored two goals. Zuzi was poor with far too many giveaways after the first cross to Eddie, Gomez blew 2-3 easy chances, Dempsey didn't show up at all. At least Eddie took people on, made runs into the box and challenged A&B. Gordon at least bought energy and basically won everything in the air, which was nice to see.
Frankly, I think Eddie faded away because he's always had all the physical tools needed and a good calm finishing instinct in front of goal, but otherwise he just has never seemed to have a head for the game.
Gomez was awful. EJ was great with his head, poor everywhere else. Gordon was a complete forward. Made the last goal with pressure defensively to win the throw, awareness to pick it up and make the cross, and of course, an excellent cross.
I understand. Still, I'd sooner blame weather conditions and the field in this particular case. To soon to tell. Neither team seemed to have great control of the ball. While one could say "well thats because its AB, cant expect much", I'm not so sure if that fits in this particular case. There was a hurricane on that field.
You've been a big soccer member for 2 years, and you've posted so rarely you still have newbie status. And yet, I somehow STILL wish you posted less often.
Yeah from what I am hearing from many people, Zusi is the best american midfielder right now. he is better than Dempsey, Donovan or Bradley. I guess it is evidence that a player can be 23 in his rookie year and dominate. None of the above were as good at Zusi when they were 26
Gomez was absolutely brutal. Dempsey sucked. EJ (obviously) had his moments. But was just o.k. outside the goals. Zusi with a couple nice crosses...and a couple pathetic ones. Bradley looked tired at times, but was mostly class. Edit: Forgot Gordon. Nice Assist.
I would love to see the reaction on here if I would have come on Bigsoccer 9-12 months ago and told you all that Alan Gordon and Eddie Johnson would be saving our WCQ hopes.
Ya'll are harsh. Bad pitch in rain means touches passing combination play are all next to impossible. add in a short field and a bunkering team ... thru passes couldn't work. speed was useless. 1 v1 next to impossible lol. there was almost no space to work with on a day touch and creativity was nullified I'm just glad we got the win
As a quakes fan all that I can add is this. Klinsmann's got a fever and the only prescription is more Earthquakes.
How do you attack a bunkering team in the rain on a poor 60 yard wide field. I really don't know, that's why I'm asking we had 70-30% advantage in possession. The field wasn't close to any FIFA standard. Does the ref or CONCACAF administrator measure the field before the game to make sure it meets some size and dimension standards?
With the extreme narrowness of the pitch there was for intents and purposes a ten yard space off the tip of the box that was conducive for sending in dangerous crosses to the box and we hit it twice and scored twice. The attack developed deep and moved forward in a narrow manner which did us no favors against 10 men behind the ball - we managed 2 goals ,they scored 1.... we win - I say, "next game - nothing to analyse" because on a pitch this size and winds over 30mph any positive result is a good thing.
For all those EJ haters, please take note that he does not play LM. He is a target forward and should have started there.
Actually a quite good post. I noticed it during the game but very few players cross the ball outside the box in that area. Its really not a cross in the traditional sense more of a soft let's get the ball in the box pass. The two goals did come from that area. Sending in the weakside wing scored the two goals. It is a very difficult place to get on the field with an opening to easily cross with 3 runners in the box against a bunkering defense. A long defensive header and that type of unbalanced offense leads to alot of quick counters where you don't have defensive numbers.