This seems like a silly thing to say for someone as good at statistics as you are. A sample size of one? As for the rest of your development points ... rock on. I was faulting him solely at first but that was a mistake. Dempsey lofts in a ball to no one in particular in the center. Bradley moves forward and MISSES it, possibly because he gets called off by Benny, doesn't do much to recover and is out of position. Benny is ignorant to the danger, gets the ball caught in his spokes, and isn't even in good enough position to foul Rossi once it gets cleanly stripped. I'd assign no blame to the CBs for not stepping up to deny a shot - the fullbacks were caught up slightly by the quick giveaway and they need to deny the through ball for what has become a 3-on-2. They give up a 30 yard shot and the kid hits a bomb. Those three middies all get some serious blame though. Note also that Bradley is the missing man on Italy's goal #2. Not stepping back into midfield to put any kind of pressure on De Rossi.
Donovan, for one, has as good or better technique at 18 striking the ball cleanly then now. I don't know how the hell this could happen actually to a guy who's been a full professional since then.
Of course it's not coincidence. Rossi went back to Italy where he lived and breathed soccer. In the US, most kids do not live and breathe the sport. Even if they love playing, they never watch games and certainly don't follow and emulate American "stars." I have coached a substantial amount of regional youth soccer through the age of 15. Most kids in the US are cookie cutter white boys. Some of those are decent players, but extremely few have the skill to allow a decent coach to even imagine them playing for a modest NCAA D1 team, let alone a pro team. Frankly, I think the better question is why there aren't decent players emerging from certain sectors of the country, and why so many do emerge from other parts of the country. I live on Long Island. It has a long history of high quality youth soccer, particularly by kids of immigrants. Recently, however, the number of high level youth players has not represented the percentage of youth players in this part of the US. The flip side of this coin is the predominance of California kids in the national youth system (14/42 (30%) of current U15 roster spots are held by Calif. boys), 1 from NYC, 1 from Port Chester, NY, and none from all of New England. The geographic distribution of quality players does not match the distribution of kids playing soccer. The answer to this question needs to be understood before making blanket condemnations of coaches and soccer organizations.
lol, but somehow that's still an understatement Edit: I tried to rep you, but "you must spread rep around...blah blah blah"
It's called puberty. This is when the kids that are true athletes start playing baseball, football or basketball. I actually had a parent of a kid I was coaching tell me that his kid was going to start playing another sport (either football or basketball, can't remember) because he was getting too big for soccer. What the F!?
I'm afraid this reply might touch on some political differences I know the two of us have, and I'd just love to avoid that. But I think the problem is really one of incentives. We just haven't really incentivized youth development to the degree I think we need to. Ultimately, when the conflicts between that approach and something else we've been doing comes up, the something else seems to have a lot more supporters than traditional foreign youth development does. There are costs to be borne by doing this, so far they are more than the people in a position to do something about it are willing to pay. You are absolutely right in that the country is far too big for one guy high up to fix everything. I think that's why the high ups need to set things up so that they eventually fix themselves. Straighten out the incentives properly, both at the MLS and U.S. Soccer levels, and the coaching issues eventually should work themselves out with only a little prodding. At the very least they should improve some.
Or maybe it's also that almost all kids have absorbed a lot more of these other sports through TV and the "soft coaching" that greater exposure to high-level games brings. I only wish that my soccer brain had been developing as much between ages 5 and 12 as it has between ages 25 and 32. Said differently, I really look forward to generations of American kids raised with five soccer channels at their disposal.
Actually it's a statistical argument. It's a sample size of millions, actually. It's a success rate of one out of those millions (not really of course, depending on how you calculate a "success"). That's really my point. It could just be a coincidence, of course, but it just seems statistically unlikely. So many more players don't go foreign than do, that statistically we'd expect our best to come domestically, even if foreign development was a little better. You are correct in that it certainly doesn't constitute proof, but it sure is interesting.
That was Bradley Jr. that didn't close Rossi down on his goal #2--and it was Spector that was embarassed on the wing beaten like a pinjata way too easily to make it the easiest cross of the century. It was also Bradley who didn't contest De Rossi's shot, giving him all day. Perhaps Demeritt didn't close quick enough on the first goal of the game, but it was really again, the midfield's responsibility at that distance. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYFEHxRrscw"]YouTube - USA vs Italy (1 - 3) FIFA Confederations Cup South Africa 2009 SKY SPORTS[/ame]
A few things to comment on. First, Feilhaber. No player seems to draw more strong opinions on both sides in this thread than he. IMO, this is because he has a tendency to attempt to make high risk plays that can result in high reward results. The two quintessential examples of this working out was his pass to EJ against Argentina and his Golazo against Mexico in the Gold Cup. The problem, imo, is that his attempts at brilliance fail to succeed and he ends up giving up possession at a far higher rate than any other US player. Plus, he has a tendency to give the ball up in dangerous positions as he does not seem to have a very good mental compass as to when is a good idea to attempt a brilliant play and when he should attempt to maintain position or play safety first. The first Italian goal was a perfect example. Yes, Dempsey put him in a bad position with the hot pass back but Feilhaber tried to do too much with it rather than getting it to safety leading directly to the Rossi opportunity. Benny is capable of moments of brilliance but against decent teams I feel he just gives up way too much possession to be worth the occasional rewards he provides. This, btw, is precisely why I would really like to see him latch on with a decent club where he can get some play -- the potential is clearly there but right now the nose for the game is not imo. Donovan. Plainly the field player of greatest class the US has ever produced. I realize he started the match as a withdrawn forward but he played the vast majority as the right sided midfielder and was involved in virtually every dangerous opportunity for the US. No one even mentions the fact that he put away the pk like it was as easy as pie. No other US player would deal with the pressure of that situation as easily as Landon did and yet not a word is mentioned about it. How about his brilliant corner late to find a wide open Davies. Class. Sure, he had some not so good free kicks as well but he is plainly the player who brings the most consistent smart play to the pitch for us. He's also the one player that our quality opponents always gameplan for more than any other. Bradley. Solid but unspectacular. The shot of his left foot in the box was painful but I thought he did yeoman's work breaking up Italian possession in the midfield after Clark was sent off until he seemed to tire late along with the rest of our squad. I thought he did okay but I'd like to see more from him going forward when presented with an opportunity. That said, I think he remains a clear first choice starter who must be on the pitch every match. Dempsey. Blah. I didn't think he was terrible but I didn't think he brought anything to the match either. One thing that I think he has developed as a result of his time in England is the dogged determination to be a thorn in the side of the opposition after he gives the ball away to them. He does make it difficult for the opposition to maintain possession but, as far as I could tell, also makes it difficult for us to maintain possession. I don't believe he has done anything (of late) to earn his automatic start and I would like to see someone else (Sacha, Torres, even Adu) given a run out in his place in one of the next two matches.
I dunno. Rossi's shooting technique was learned well before the age of 13. As was his touch. Nothing magical, just serious soccer happens overseas from 13 on. The magical part of your game is developed waaaaay before the age of 13.
I dunno. The guy on the left wing smoked Spector. Not sure who that was. But Demerit was central on that goal--the game's 3rd.
I'm sure your training would dwarf mine but ... I'm just going to channel Stephen Colbert's gut on this one. One out of millions isn't a "rate" - and you're defining success so that only one person meets the criteria. That's an outlier. Or are you refining the sample to include any US-born player who gets high level training here or abroad at age 13 or so? And then maybe you could find some other foreign-trained successes for us to talk about ... All I'm saying is you probably have a point, and leading the discussion with psuedo-statistics and Rossi is distracting to it.
Been a while since I posted, but overall I would say the midfield was below par. We all know Benny is a cm, and really an AM. we all know BB is going to play his son as a CM and another DM along side. Ergo, if he wanted benny, landon, and dempsey on the field at the same time. One of those players is going to play out on the wing. And none of those players are wingers. They will pinch in, drift central, whatever, and then have to chase when the ball is played out to the wing by the Italians. That's a problem. But not a killer in itself. But when we lost Rico, after chasing back to cover on defense and being constantly out of position, by the 70 min they were walking dead out there. I could be much more specific, but in my opinion, BB has coached the most juvenille game I have seen him coach. Truly, only amateurs to coaching start a game with the idea of trying to pigeonhole players whom he knows will play a certain way under the false notion that "I got to get my best 11 players on the field and hope they make plays". That works up to about the u-15 level. Then the skills of certain players start to develope and a national team coach should have a gameplan, a midfield formation, tactics, and be knowledgable enough to adapt midgame to curves the refs throw at you. The midfield was poor. But it was going to be poor. The penalty gave the US a chance to correct BB mistake and move Benny central. But then we needed extra defensive cover. Demspey should have come off for Sasha and play simple 4-4-1. Maybe this should be posted in the coaching/tactics/subs thread, but we lost the game in the midfield, so I put it here. Just my opinion, but our midfield has to play better, and it won't until our coach determines our best midfield formation and if that means sitting dempsey, or mikey, or benny, so be it. Just my opinion, and my wife says I am wrong 68% of the time... PooBah
Feilhaber is one of the worst players I've seen in a US jersey in many years. Seriously, this kid would struggle to make the 1990 team. He was just floating out there...out of place most of the time...jogging...horrible touches...and was way outclassed. How does he make the starting lineup for the US against the defending world champions? This shows a severe lack of judgment by Bradley. This is the most I've seen Feilhaber in a game ever, and I've seen enough to know this guy is clueless out there on the field. At times it was like watching an average NCAA player plopped down onto the field in the middle of an international game.
Feilhaber's long range passing has now directly contributed to goals against multiple world class teams. Or put another way, of the six matches we've played against world class teams in the Bob Bradley era, half of our goals have come from Benny Feilhaber passes (no that's not really statistically significant, but I thought it would help drive home the point). Benny has a unique skillset in our pool, and he's going to continue to get opportunities because of it. On another note, if nobody in this thread has done so yet, I should point out that Michael Bradley stripping the ball away from an Italian midfielder and starting a counterattack led to two of our three best opportunities in this match.
My point is simply you'd expect the best US eligible player to be trained in the US, for the simple reason that there's tons more who fit that profile than who do not. It's hundreds versus millions. So you're talking about a 1 in 1,000 chance if there's no difference between the two. That tends to reach standard levels of statistical significance. Now you could always complain about the numbers and the potential of not comparing like to like, but that's the ratio I'm looking at. And sure, not everyone trained by Gremio becomes Ronaldinho, but then nobody who is trained by the Chicago Sockers does. Obviously it requires a certain amount of talent to go with that training, but I think even when we have that talent we squander it.
No. Spector was denying Rossi on the left, 45 yards from goal. He passes it forward to Pirlo, who turns/smokes DeMerit and runs the end line. Rossi does eventually outrun Spector to the spot, becoming the free man in the box. Interestingly one player could have dropped to cover Rossi ... Michael Bradley! Though Howard, DeMerit, or Spector would have had to yell at him to do it, as DeMerit was recovering in time to allow Bradley to drop off as the second man. Funny how I thought Bradley had a decent game but on review he could have denied all three Italian chances if his positioning and decision-making were better.
Okay, banshees don't chase...nor do they scream. They wail, usually from a stationary position. Much like I did after the game.
The skill isn't completely absent from our player pool: Bradley had a piledriver today that unfortunately was not from a good angle, because Buffon had a lot more trouble with it than you'd expect (and also had the goal from distance vs. Mexico), Clark's been known to score from distance with his club. But it certainly is less prevalent than it is with other nations. I'd go with the first.
Ricardo Clark [4] – The red card on Clark was harsh, but he should have known better to have gone into that challenge with his foot off the ground. He was playing okay up until that point, but he did have a turn over early in the match. He had a searching ball over the top in the 19th minute that could have led to a chance. The send-off was also his third foul of the match. Clark must learn to be disciplined when he is challenging for the ball and not put his team into such a compromising position. Clint Dempsey [5] – Dempsey did not put in the performance that the US needed him to do. He played very predictable, always dropping the ball back, even when he had space to turn into. He wasted a chance in the 9th minute when he cracked a free kick well wide of the target. In the 52nd minute, he cut back into pressure and then tried to dribble his way out of trouble instead of looking for a pass or shot. He also played a short, terrible ball into pressure that led to the first Italian goal. He had a long range effort that troubled Buffon in the 80th minute. I thought his best contribution to the match was throwing himself into the fray when the US was defending corner kicks. Michael Bradley [8] – Bradley was easily the man of the match in the first half, but was forced to play a more defensive role after Clark was sent-off. He was very composed and controlled the width of the midfield by spreading the ball around early. He worked hard to apply pressure in the midfield and force some bad decisions from the Italians. He had several clutch tackles and had a cracking shot in the 42nd minute. I would have liked to have seen him continue his run in the 51st minute, instead of chipping the ball over the top. Benny Felihaber [6] – Benny had an up and down match. He did show good, creative vision at times. He was able to use that to switch the field and open up more chances for the US. He seemed to lose some composure as the match went on and had a bad turnover with a backpass in the 55th minute. His pass to Altidore set-up the only goal. However, he did not do a good job tracking back and was dispossessed by Rossi that led to the first Italian goal. He also had a very dangerous challenge in the 69th minute, where he should have been shown a caution.
I don't get the tendentious drama over Rossi. Concacaf strikers have waltzed through the US midfield and teed up from distance with aplomb. Did people miss the Honduras match?
I was shocked by this too on slo-mo-ing the goals. Jr. did what Torres was kinda accused for once against CR...butMike Bradleye could have blocked all three if he had maybe an extra step, or even half a step.