The Honduras game was a bad attempt at bunker, after the 1-1. They had several chances to win it, until they finally scored. The USA broke forward once in all that time. Basically, bunkering has been a very important part of the strategy when facing any team (in friendly or qualification) stronger than Jamaica at home. So far in the Hex, out of 270 minutes played, over half it's been a clear bunker, or a misguided attempt to bunker.
I disagree on both counts. If you look at the analytics the only change in the teams activity in the 2nd half was we spent less time building in the middle of the rink but we had similar activity in our 3rd and the CR 3rd. We hit a lot more long balls which coincides with what JK said, http://www.mlssoccer.com/matchcenter/2013-03-22-USA-v-CRC/chalkboard
Ouch. PS: Actually, the "commentary" section gives a better idea of what was going on, rather than the numbers and heat maps. The second half it was attack after attack by the Ticos, punctuated by a few US attempts. Just click on the "Commentary" tab and see for yourself.
The offsides calls are the biggest eye-opener. One team was being decidedly more "proactive" than the other in that game, and it wasn't the USMNT.
Are you guys really trying to break down a game that was played in a blizzard? Those stats are absolutely meaningless. Not even worth the bandwidth they took up. Perhaps if we played in a blizzard more often and over a foot of snow then it might be worth discussing. No way you can rate these stats being such a unique case.
In this case I'd say, it's not to be used as main point in debate, doing so makes no sense. We won it, it gave us three points. We all enjoyed how much Beasley ran and Jermaine's hair. Nothing more to talk about in that game. Well Sobario pushing one of our guys into the post and Jermaine Jones punching a guy. Trying to scrutinize facts in a game that is played in such unique and adverse circumstances is in poor faith. The stats shouldn't be used to compare or contrast any other games.
Tend to agree...yet there are certain posters here who will manipulate any stat, in any circumstance, not always in good faith, or in it's true form, to justify their viewpoint...and have been called out on it by at least a dozen posters by now. Not talking about the poster u are responding to either. It's a tool, but can be a deceptive one used rabidly by the worst in our society to twist the uneducated, unaware and clueless. JK has gotten some results, but there is no way anyone who actually watches the team, and understands the basics of the game, and who has a shred of unbiased opinion, can watch his teams and say we have a functional offense right now. It's grind it out soccer.
We are incredibly easy to defend. The opposing defense has the game in front of them the entire time. If I'm one of the lesser CONCACAF teams I'd give us all the possession we want seeing as we have no idea what to do with it.
Why we have to do the same in the qualifiers. JK has to use the second half to up the offense with subs. For the moment, the only ones I can think of who aren't starters are: Donovan?, Shea?, Holden?, Gatt? Donovan, Holden and Shea (even if he get's into a friendly) may not be in form. I don't know about Gatt but his finishing still needed some work last time. What about Boca (for his heading skills on corners tho' we don't get many) as a 2nd half sub?
No, it was probably the smart play to bunker back a bit. The US had a 1-0 lead. It was their luxury to sit back and force CR to score through 9 or 10 behind the ball with very difficult conditions. The only point I was making is that we did bunker in the second half of the match. I was not looking at stats or anything else. Only what I observed on the screen that night.
....I'm sure there is someone working on some ass backwards stats right now to prove your eyes were wrong. Then again, some eyes can't see the weaknesses in Mo Edu's game that every coach, scout and 99.9% of BS now see.....and has been obvious for a long time.
I completely agree that the SnowBall game is analytically useless. It was a hillarious, bizarre farce of a match, and all that mattered was the crucial 3 points. Interestingly, after that match we had a number of posters trying to use those 3 points as "proof" that the Strauss article was fiction and that JK was doing fine with the team. At that time I argued strongly that that game proved nothing one way or another because of the bizarre conditions. Grab the 3 points and get out of town. Nothing more and nothing less analytically. No proof or evidence of anything other than Beasley has guts and Jones' hair was great. There is plenty to analyze from the Honduras and Mexico matches, but the SnowBall game was just a merry farce, the most unusual US game I've watched in over 25 years of following the team.
Just know you've forfeited any right to declare Klinsmann has the team back on track based on the last round of qualifiers. I'll hold you to it...schrutebuck is only a private message away.
Check out 2:25 of the highlight video (35:08) of the match. There are 7 players in the attacking 3rd with both FBs advanced almost to the 18. The attacking point is all forward and central with both #8s in the attack pattern. Next look at 3:20 of the video (50:40 of the match with the score tied 1-1). You can see again 7 players in the buildup with 6 in and around the box at the time of the MB strike. Again 4:27 (64:08 match time) see 7 players in the attack pattern. Bunkering teams don't behave that way. In the post Honduras commentary most here including yourself criticized JK for not playing defensively enough with his subs after the US goal. Now you are accusing him of bunkering? Which is it?
Good post. I definitely wouldn't classify this match as one where JK bunkered...more like one where he was defensively and tactically naive. But he wanted the 3 points, so we were either going to get that or get nothing.
Honduras was not a bunker. At times it might have looked like one, but that is what happens when you play a handful of players who had never played in those conditions/totally unprepared for those conditions. Everything slows down.
If you read my posts, unlike others here, I'm not a hater of the bunker style. Matter of fact, I'm a great admirer of Tata Martino and his Paraguayan side. It's other folks here who seem very irritated at the bunkering, or who say it's not even real bunkering but an attempt by JK to save face. As I said above, it wasn't the whole Honduras game. It was before Zusi and Sacha were together on the field. Basically, from 45' to 70' it was (far from solid) bunkering. After that came the mistake: taking out Jones and instead of instructing the sub to keep the marking job, sending BOTH Zusi and Sacha forward, leaving a glaring hole behind. I think bunkering + hitting when the hole is found is the best way to guarantee 2nd place in the Hex (as I've also noted in another thread). The only thing I have against bunkering is that it looks ugly, particularly to the less tactically-oriented fan. But when done properly, it's a thing of beauty and intelligence. [It's not going to help the development of soccer's popularity in the USA though!] What irks me though is that some of the same people who hated Bradley over his "bunker + counter" style, seem to love Jürgen for his "bunker + wait" style. They are both decent coaches, and Bob did very well with his style. JK is still developing his. As I've said many times, my beef here is not that I think JK sucks as a coach, he doesn't. I'm just convinced that he is very over-priced (for a coach with basically 2 years of actual experience when he took the job), and I find it extremely annoying that he talks too much, and seems to do the opposite of what he says --not to mention he manifests a certain lack of self-awareness when he criticizes the players and the system, that I find utterly unbearable.
Bin-FN-go...as I have said, personally he all things I despise. The hypocrisy from last cycle to this is damn funny. He is way overpriced for a guy with limited experience who is showing to be completely average. Get the points, STFU, and spare me the pseudo intellectual nonsense. I'm hoping to get back to where I was with him before Hondo, when I started to have some faith. I hope after these matches I can start to feel better about him again as a coach...even though I personally think he is a douche and I would keep him as far away from me with layers in any office I ran, so I wouldn't have to listen to him. Just get the points. JK makes it easy to dislike and make fun of JK. He is his own worst enemy.
So FKN what? As an atheist I'm often caught groaning when an athlete attributes his success to some symbol of his codified superstition. Doesn't affect my appreciation of their athletic skills in the least, and really, that is the only aspect of their lives I care about.
Well, not every coach or scout. Or even 60% of BS posters. Wrong on all counts. You would probably say "exaggerated," but I would say wrong.
What does this have to do with your assertion that 'He (JK) bunkers and waits for the one mistake, in games that matter.' It seems like some posters dislike for JK causes them to make up things that just are not true. It makes any kind of serious discussion impossible. JK's coaching has real issues that we should be able to discuss. We should not have to make things up. PS, this is more a commentary on a general problem than this specific point. I enjoy your posts and generally find your criticism of JK clever, witty, and quite humorous, unlike some of the mean-spirited-foaming-at-the-mouth stuff you see from other posters.
It is true. So far, in the 450 minutes played in games that matter, against non-minnows (@ JAM, vs. JAM, @HON, vs. CRC, @ MEX), half of the time the style has been to keep in the area, waiting for the other team's mistake. Matter of fact, that has been the most effective strategy JK has employed, and he's got scored on when trying to break away from it and moving the midfield forward. It's a valid observation, and it's a very valid style of play. PS: I think the "bunker + counter" style played by Bradley was more fun to watch, since it depended on a sudden burst of speed that made you go, "sweet!" --like that goal versus Brazil in the Confeds Final, 2009. That was spectacular. On the other hand, the more possession-oriented (still working on that), more reflective, more intellectual style JK is forced* to play, can get even better results in the right hands (I don't think a guy with less than 10 years coaching experience is the "right hands," but I may be wrong). It's much less fun to watch, though. --- * Forced to play = at first JK wanted the style to be more tiki-taka, possession in midfield, still quite defensive (Barcelona is, in fact, a very defensive team --they have never been particularly solid at defending, that's why they keep the ball in the other team's middle). Sadly, he came face to face with a simple reality: can't play midfield possession while running forward, in the style of some of the best European/South American clubs, when about half of your players lack the technique to keep the ball. And I mean when facing strong rivals, not Cuba or Antigua. If you want to play that style, it's enough for one player to lose it and the other team can hit you on the counter, and kill you. Like Brazil did (and hapless Scotland, a team playing not better than Guatemala, couldn't).
Watching this UCL pre-game show and Klinsmann has just said, "you know?" about 15 times in the last 2 minutes. No exaggeration.