US-Panama...a few game stats (R)

The US was overall very poor yesterday. People may have reasons behind the performance but the overall grade for the team was perhaps a C- at best.

I do not put much stock into a one game performance but I am concerned that our last 3 matches, as well as Haiti, have all plodded along without a decisive US match.

None of our last several opponents should really threaten us but they all have.

Pehaps the US game plan is becoming too predicatable? I'm not sure, but I really thought the line-up on the field would have created more quality chances.

I did not see the type of off ball movement and opening runs that I would have expected the US to provide. The few times I saw some runs were generated by Frankie running down the right. Where was Vanney and his crosses into the box? For that matter, where was the penetration by Beasley and Donovan? I'm not 100% but I don't recall seeing anyone flip-flop positions in order to provide a different look to Panama. Also, I would have love to see Ching and Conor actually turn and go at the defense once in awhile. Their quick back passes or sqaure balls were too predicatable and the Panama defense simply began to sag a little when they showed for the ball.

Overall, we are in good position to close out this phase on our home turf but the US better get their act in gear and bring a better quality performance.

 

Sorry buddy. Since I'm not you I'm going to write what I want to write. The US sucked plain and simple. If you disagree, that's your opinion. I just expect more of our team at this point. You know the simple things like being able to complete a pass, making runs of the ball, showing effort, pressing when Panama has possession, etc. A little urgency for fvcks sake. It took a goal from Panama to wake us up out of our coma. Even in the first half when we had a couple of chances, we weren't playing well. Padding their shot stats? Most of their outside shots were quality. They could have trounced us with a little more luck. It was the worst US effort I have witnessed in years.

 

Are you suggesting that they took those shots to acheive statistical parity? I was watching the game with 23 other USMNT fans in a bar, and there were a lot of gasps when some of those bombs were struck just wide of the post.

I will grant that there are a number of posters who turn every USMNT hiccup into a national disaster, but there are also a number of people that see through rose, white & blue colored glasses as well. (I'm not saying you are one, just pointing that out.) Both will be right, wrong, and hysterical at times. Like Elias & Barnes, they will continually battle for ownership of Taylor. (platoon, anyone?).

I can't watch that game last night and say that the US played well, that the US deserved the point, or that the US was the better team. The US-Jamaica game, to me, was a much more even game than the Panama game, and Jamaica is a better team than Panama. (earlier result, granted)

Say it's 1997, and we play the game Panama played vs. Mexico, at home, and Mexico squeaked out a tie in the 92nd. Wouldn't we say we outplayed them? Wouldn't we say they were lucky to tie us?

So, to me, us not beating them, us not playing better, us squeaking out a point, is a let down. It's a bad performance, a bad result. I'm not jumping out any windows, but I think we all expected a lot more from the team, and some amount of kicking the cat on the way in the door is normal.

No arguement.

I don't think we played smart. Were we gutty? Sure. We didn't fold down a goal, and we didn't curl into the fetal position on their ground in front of their fans as US road teams have in the past, but I think it was 80% luck, 20% guts that we got a point. If that goal is called back, or if we get 2 minutes stoppage and not 3, a crap Prendegrast call....then what? Surely it wasn't in the plan to have US Archeological Exhibit Cobi Jones score in the 92nd minute to eek out a tie, and our bar wasn't singing "Great Escape" to be ironic.

 

Pad their stats?? Some of those "bombs" you refer to barely missed the posts. Panama was shooting from all over, and the US defense struggled to prevent it. Whether they ran at and around our defense, beat us to headers on set pieces, or took powerful shots from distance, they were dangerous -- not into the upper rows. From in the box or out, a good shots are good shots, and Panama had plenty.

It was Panama, Dave. Most people expect the US to do better than just "pretty even".

IMO it is perfectly reasonable for US fans to be disappoonted in almost every aspect of our team's performance. You characterizing that opinion as "high pitched screeching" and "silly, childish overreaction" and telling people to "shut the fvck up" is more silly, childish and screeching than any critique I have read so far.

Most of the reactions I have read so far are peoples opinions of what happened, and often include specific citicisms (e.g., bad passing, fitness, effort, soggy pitch, ref decisions, etc). That sounds like people interpreting what the saw, not "emotional reaction". On the other hand, your posts in this thread seem very emotional.

Most people disagree with you. The don't think the team played "a'ight". Why can't you just disagree instead of telling everyone how emotional their disagreement is, and that they need to "shut the fvck up"?

Did anyone need your permission?

 

Stop that emotional, childish, screeching! Stop it, stop it, stop it, I say!!!

 

Dave, I know what you are driving at, but to some degree anyway, you are wrong. There are many varieties of sucking and the US displayed at least two types in abundance last night. Even with the possession advantage and much better opportunities in the first half, the play sucked (version 1) relative to normal. It was most obvious in the rate of pass completion or lack thereof. The passing was atrocious. Some, like one of Reyna's that stopped dead in the water, were weather related. But most were simply inaccurate giveaways. The SUCK v1 continued in the second half when the new installation (Suck v2) arrived. That combined the poor passing of the first half with a lack of midfield effort which, as I read it, was partly a combination of fatigue (largely in Reyna) and a crummy lineup (i.e., no Armas/Zavagnin as a true defensive mid). SUCK v2 gave up the goal as real effort (by Panama, however inept) usually trounces lack of effort combined with ineptness.

For the record, however, the US did get a goal - perhaps by luck- that made up for 2-3 goals that, with the same luck, they could very well have had in the first half.

 

*dave returns to thread, claims to be sole voice of objectivity, then has his nose stuck in it some more*

 

In all fairness, then, your initial post shouldn't be here. Unless this thread is an exercise in either irony or hypocrisy.

 

This is true...
The question is why didn't we adjust at halftime... We played not to loose in the second half. We should always play to win..
Subbing has to be questioned..
Reyna comes out. Convey in. Frankie? WTF is he still here for?
Cobi?WTF and playing L.D. on the wing? He should always be in the middle or up top... Casey out....Mchead in...
Bruce adjustment were very bad.... He almost cost us a point. Which it looks like we will need...
If we would of come out in the second half playing like the first then those stats would far out favor the U.S.

 

I recall at least two long range shots that had Keller beat. Frankly, Panama had so many shots that were better than ours, I can't remember them all.

Your opinion is that the USNT should not be expected to outplay Panama. Lots of people seem to disagree, but perhaps they lack your wisdom, reason and objectivity. Or maybe they just think the US should be able to handily outplay Panama, rain or shine.

You say the US outshot Panama 12-11. The USSF's own match report states Panama outshot the US 16-9. Apparently, data can be subjectively objective.

But more "objective data" might be helpful for everyone's post-match analysis (so people don't resort to emotional, childish screeching).

Any idea where we can find stats on how many times US players were outhustled to 50/50 balls, stripped or obligingly gave it away with poor passes?

 

Yeah, both you and Dave usually save that kind of talk for my reputation thingy. Nice and passive aggressive.

But all in all, I thought we played extremely well for most of the first half, but were outplayed in the second half to a greater extent. In the end, Panama was robbed of the win. We didn't deserve a point last night in the final analysis, and I'm glad that most of us can see that.

OK Dave, fire away at my reputation again. I know you don't like it when your disagreed with, and how much BS means to you.

 

So, not only did we do well, we beat them pillar to post just like Man U did? I don't think that's a great example.

There are examples of the time during the game when a goal scored is indicative of luck, and times when it's not. If they scored in minute 10 and we scored in minute 20, I would not say we were lucky. When they score in the middle of the second half and we score with a minute left in stoppage, I call that luckier. I don't think goal scoring happens in a vacuum, and I don't suspect that you do either.

Example: Metro at DC, Sept. 2003. A 0-0 tie is broken around the 70th minute, DC goes ahead. Metro get a foul outside of the box in the 4th minute of a 5 minute stoppage, Lisi lofts a ball that is headed in by Magee, Metro tie and get a point. DC fans called it lucky. (actually, they called it "cheating", but let's leave the club nonsense aside). Or, have another. Euro2000 final, Italy runs France off the pitch but can't build on a 1-0 lead. 5 minutes into a 6 minute stoppage (or so), France scores, and then gets a winner in OT to take it. Everyone on the planet called France lucky, or at least fortunate. Doesn't mean France wasn't a good team, just that you can't go into the final minute of stoppage down a goal expecting to score, can you?

So, two examples of when the time of the goal influenced the perception of the relative "luck" of the outcome. I think there are times when it matters, and times when it doesn't, but I don't think you can say a goal in stoppage time is perceived the same way as a goal in the 70th or so minute. Just ain't.

Here are the basic points I left the game with:

1. Panama played better for 90 minutes than we did. That's a bummer.

2. We scored a goal 2+ minutes into a 3 minute stoppage. Call it clutch timing, luck, or whatever, it should not have come down to that.

That's it.

 

I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. The first 45 the US clearly dominated possession and basically did anything thing they wanted to except, unfortunately, take shots and score. The ball was largely in the Panamanian half. Perhaps someone can pull up some stats to dispute my next claim, but in my opinion possession went something like 70% US 30% Panama in the first 45. Obviously if no goals are being scored, simple 'possession' loses some of its luster, but to say that Panama played better than us for 90 minutes is false.

 

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that they were better than us over the full 90 minutes. from watching the game, they clearly had more dangerous opportunites to score than we did. And we didn't dominate the full 45 of the first half. the last 10 minutes of the first half, THEY dominated. They outplayed us. Period. The sooner people admit that, the better our respective recoveries will be. LOL

 

I think some more balanced perspective post game would be amazing and good for BigPanic.com, but getting people to admit they tend to overreact to every US game is probably impossible. The US typically struggles against lesser quality competition, especially in away venues, and typically shows much better against its betters. If I recall correctly, the Richmond Kickers put the fear of God into every Big Soccer poster right before the World Cup. Bruce should be fired! The team is a disgrace! We're going to go 3 and out. We're doomed! And so on and so forth...

...not one of these doomsayers could be found a scant few weeks later after the US beat the then feared Portugal, tied the home nation, beat Mexico (who until then was having a great Cup), and nearly beat the Germans.

But then again...getting emotional, irrational, and completely crazy is what Big Soccer is known for. As I said before...see you all in Germany. Sheesh...

 

I thought Haiti was the wake up call...we must have hit the snooze button.

 

You know what I find really obnoxious? (not that you asked)

People claiming the moral high ground and painting anyone who disagrees with them as a mindless reactionary who is hell bent on self destruction. "Pity those poor souls; the hand wringing mouthbreathers, so hog tied to their limbic brains and lacking the quality imported beer and access to grade A lithium that has allowed me to achieve this exhaulted state of existence that is Soccer's UberMensch. How do they get through the day?"

Please. It's like the Bush clan calling anyone who challenged them unpatriotic. It's like Cheney saying that anyone who votes for Kerry is going to get a nuclear missle turkey at gamma's house on Thanksgiving. Using the outliers to dismiss the center is dismissive, inaccurate and more telling about your intentions than anyone else's.

There are tons of people who see every loss as an example of the sky falling, but to paint everyone who is disappointed with one game with that brush is a disingenuous stab at all of us, and frankly, you can shove it. This thread was started to take to task those people yammering in another thread about the game ("So all you screechy girls can shut the f*** up", etc.). Looking back, had it been a post in that thread it could have at least stayed in the original context. But anyway.

Most of the posts in this thread have been level headed, on point, and basically illustrate a difference in opinion over whether the game was one blip in the road, one sign that we still have a ways to go, or an indication that maybe some of us thought more highly of the team than we should have.

If nothing else, you and Superdave are reacting to the reactionaries, which makes you a de facto reactionary. So now what?

I think we played badly. We had good stretches, but after the first 30 minutes, they owned the next hour of the game. I expect the US to play well enough for that not to happen, well enough to not need a goal in the 92nd minute to eek out a tie, well enough to avoid dumb threads like this in the first place. I don't consider that overreacting.

I didn't suggest anyone get fired, or kicked off the national team, or booted from ever being in Nats camp again, but to paint it- as some have- as a normal 1-1 tie where one goal just happened to come at the end of the game is a joke. Soccernet called it "A Last Gasp Tie". Kasey Keller said "We didn't play particularly well, particularly in the second half". US Soccer, likely a more neutral body than any of us keyboard crackpots, has "Cobi Saves US..." as a headline, in an article that refers to the US as escaping with a draw, called the US second half "shaky" and refers to Panama as both "owning" and "dominating" it, and mentioned that we were "fortunate to have a chance to equalize" after the Panama goal.

So, who is overreacting? For the handfull of screaming mimis in this thread (though most are in another one), there are a number of people (me, Nermalthecat, Lmorin, Onefineesq) who are simply stating they didn't think the team played well enough.

Why isn't that a good enough arguement? USSoccer and Soccernet agrees with us. You don't, okay, but I fail to see why one side gets the sole claim to genius and reason while the others are relegated to some Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist School tecaher status.

So, the goalie says we didn't play well. The press says we didn't play well. The Fed says we didn't play well. Yet, we echo that, and we're all reactionaries because a couple of other people go nuts.

Funk dat.

 

The tone coming across is not nearly as rational or well-thought out as you suggest. It is tinged, markedly so, with complete exaggerations like, "Panama played better for 90 minutes..." (your quote) which is just wrong. Watch the first half again. If calling you guys on your overreaction to one game is 'reactionary', so be it. Dave and I are not saying this was a great game by the US national team, or even a good game. In fact, it wasn't pretty by a long shot. What we're NOT doing is calling for Bruce Arena to be fired over this game, or that "so and so" player(s) should never touch a national team jersey again because of the latest debacle, or that we were outplayed the entire game, or if it were not for luck (nevermind the fact that quite possibly that luck was generated by a team that would not give up until the final whistle blew) we would be doomed.

Qualification is tough. Ask Jamaica, beaten at home by this team. A top 10 ranking doesn't automatically qualify the US into "win games by blowout" category. Every team out there is gunning for us and every opponent is leaving everything out on the field when we come to their backyard. Central America is a tough place to play. The weather, the local support, and the conditions of the fields are all advantages for the home side. Despite all of this, we got our point and we focus on the next game and commit ourselves to performing better. Though I too would like to see exciting and dominating ball from our team, the reality is that Bruce's job is to get us through qualification and get the invitation to the dance. If he can do that by winning the home games and tying the away games so that in 2006 we're in Germany, his mission is accomplished and nobody remembers or cares about this game.

 

Great post, Ombak, thanks for the desperately needed perspective.

Too bad you didn't stay up to watch the game - you would never have known it from reading the commentary on here, but it was a tightly contested and fairly entertaining match, for one which remained scoreless until midway through the second half. The US completely controlled the first half, then Panama stepped it up in front of their home crowd and took it to the US defense in the second half.

 

1) No idea where FSW got those stats from on shots.

2)Playing conditions were poor.This goes both ways,though.

3)My biggest concern was what seemed to be a failure of either fitness,effort or both.

4) Does everyone understand now why we need a dedicated defensive mid on the pitch?

5) We could have had three goals in the first 30 minutes,which could have had an influence on the level of effort for both sides later.Or not.

6)It is perfectly legitimate to analyse a game on impressionistic criteria.In fact in most countries' media that is exactly what occurs.

7)If we play Reyna as a mid,we either go to a 3-man line or play a box midfield.He can't be a sole d-mid in a diamond.

 

I hope that list was your abbeviated version, not exhaustive.