Very nice win. We controlled the whole game and limited their chances. Several standout individual performances. No complaints from me.
Yeah, I don't think it's really meant to be predictive for all 8 teams. It's supposed to set a mark for what a team needs to finish top 3/guarantee qualification directly. To put it another way, if every team in the Ocho met "expectations," according to the 3 points at home, 0 points away model, all teams would finish tied on points, and any given team in that group would be more likely than not to miss out on direct qualification. In reality, there's probably an average point total somewhere between 1.5 points per game and 2 points per game that guarantees qualification. But I doubt that it would be simple to track each team's performance on a game to game basis relative to those average point total expectations if you used any number between those two values. In the absence of that, I'm still fine with using 2 points per game, with the understanding that we'll probably still qualify if we end up in the negative.
Nobody played bad. This Jamaica team was lacking a lot of their offensive players but their defense was compact and held until halfway through the second half. With that said, our defense was pretty much not tested much. Our offense was, we had our chances early in the first half but ref wanted to keep it close. In the second half our conditioning and the fact that we switched or went over the top more cause Jamaica's defense to open up, and we made them pay. Our conditioning is why we are a second half team. A bigger test is coming up. Mckennie is not himself. He looks like a player that is playing for the first time with this team. He also doing it with Juve. I hope he snaps out of it.
Also, you know, 2-3 red cards. That xG is probably well over 3 if Arriola and Aaronson get shots off.
I'm sure he will. The intriguing question is, Is Pepi going to play much in Panama? I see Hoppe starting over Aaronson. We will probably see Lletget as well.
I honestly think the whining about the ref is overblown. Yeah, he could have thrown out a Jamaican for a soft foul 20 seconds in and changed the whole game, but we didn't need the special treatment. And on the second play, first off a slightly firmer ball gets past the spot where the tackle happened and Aaronson is clear on goal. The ball was slightly underhit, giving the defense the chance to tackle. And the defender did get the ball before the man so it wasn't anywhere near as bad as so many seem to think. Could they both have been red cards? Sure, but those would have been two soft, game changing red cards. I'd rather win 11 v 11 than win that way.
I had thought taking Aaronson and Pepi off so early (atleast earlier than usual) and so fast after taking the 2 goal lead was an indication of them starting in Panama. I can see us playing the hot hands, wanting to go for the win. But also doing some rotation and wanting to keep it close and go for the win late also makes sense.
Anyone who isn't completely on board? I don't think anyone has made that accusation about the posters who have said, as you have, that he has value but is lacking in certain ways, etc. The posters who say he's "worthless" or "has no value"? I mean, yeah, those people clearly don't understand how the sport works. Call it arrogant or condescending, but it is true. Many of the posters here agree but just say it differently. You think he was one of the better players yesterday but see his issues. I see his weaknesses but think he brings a ton of value in non-finishing ways. It's just spin. But some people think he's trash and have said so. Those people are wrong.
I think that was after he ran full out, and broke down like 3 or 4 guys before finally being taken off the ball. That's what I took it to be, that kind of burst and sudden stop lead to the "oh ----" hammy nightmare, I had that happen in my classroom when I bent down to pick up some papers last spring lol, fell over spasming on the ground, so glad nobody saw it lol, I would've never heard the end of it. Like a baseball injury, except even more pathetic.
Just one other thing about Arriola. When you learn to play forward, you are taught to take up correct positions when a winger or defender sends in a cross. Sometimes you have to provide width, sometimes you have to provide depth, depending on the situation's dynamics. Teams, even great teams, often fail to score on outstanding crosses because guys get in each other's way, or players are congregating in very small spaces allowing the defense to stay more compact. Moreover, the keeper now has an easier job because there is really only ONE place in space the header can come from, and, even more significantly, uncaught saves pushed out will see the ball move into space where there are no opponents. Rewatch the goal from the Dest cross -- when I saw it I thought, "Wow, this was a training ground goal." And one aspect of the training ground nature of this sequence was the position that Arriola took up. He established proper depth, RIGHT behind Pepi. Had the flighted ball from Dest been a bit deeper, the header would have been his. Had Pepi not finished, he was in a great position to get a second ball back on goal. And he was RIGHT behind Pepi, and thus hidden from the keeper's view. This is a guy who knows what to do when playing forward. As others have mentioned, he's not the greatest technically, and his finishing skill leaves a bit to be desired, but his mental awareness AND toughness are very valuable.
We had .17 xg for the 1st half and less than 2 for the game, in comparison to their .29. So it's not an unflattering scoreline, early red not withstanding. Which would have been a partial technicality, because if the foul just isn't committed, our xg is right around 2 probably. If we do go up a man, we can't say we could break down 10. It may have been a negative to our offensive output, actually. Jamaica would have been more inclined to be dedicated to sitting then. Costa Rica has nil-nil'ed back-to-back roadies. They'll be more inclined to be disciplined, like Canada was, and accomplished for 40 minutes. That's more the extent to our ineptitude. You can't have gotten the offense you wanted to see. We had no ideas in the final 3rd when they were organized, but scored our 2nd goal on a 3-2 advantage after Canada opened up. Almost every chance came off fast breaks, inc. the 1st goal. We saw more diversity in the offense in the 2nd half v. Honduras, including ability to break down against a better opponent on the road, when we were getting the ball into final 3rd one way or another & picking out passes against a set d.
No. he still a 6ft. 170 lbs. He was always strong. He can take the challenge from bigger opponents. His only weakness is not having a reliable left foot and his 1v1 game.
There were a number of chances that didn't show up on the XG analysis. The play where Zardes just missed Weah's cross was one of those. Was the play where Blake pulled the ball off the line considered an XG play? I understand the concept of XG, but I'm not as wedded to it as others may be. As to your point about the goals coming off of fast breaks? That's EXACTLY what I want to see. The offense was faster, more direct, and going downhill. I'd say the XG numbers probably understated the real value of US scoring chances by a half goal or so.
It's not all of them, I get into it, but still follow a couple of El Tri fans born and raised here, and while they can be a bit delusional about their team or ours at times (and heck, trashing their team hard for losing at home TO CANADA, as if they didn't just get outplayed badly, a month ago, by a weaker Canadian side in the Gold Cup, and only won as a byproduct of their ---hat fans doing the chant, gifting them extra time to find a winner) just as we can be about our own, they have also been pretty precise in what's wrong with theirs, and they absolutely all think Guardado is donezo. I think the type of takes you get is more contingent on what set of fans you stir up. Just look at our NA board, there's a wide variety of factions that are called a wide variety of things by one another. I imagine the pro Guardado contingent are largely the homers, or just fans that don't want their heroes trashed by USMNT fans, even if they do suck now. A "we trash our own, not you," kind of attitude.
Then Concacaf has truly leaved no stone unturned in its quest to be a dumpster fire… that is pathetic.
Gotta tip my hat to arriola. Was not expecting that from him. For me that was absolutely his best game in a US jersey.
The first one wouldn't have been soft. Maybe the rule is unfair but it's no dumber than the handball in the box called against the US back in June.
Yeah you are, lol, it's pretty hard to produce a ---- performance, and beat France 5-1. I know your point, but for the most part, the posters worth reading are looking for great performances or good ones, they aren't looking for perfection. Even w/in our "performance first" contingent, Yurch and I totally disagree. He saw two yellows, I saw two or three reds, he saw a middling performance, I saw a team that could only be stopped by repeated red card offenses that a ref wouldn't call, and that finally yielded results after producing a solid first half that likely would've been great if not for incompetent reffing. It's never so simple. The people whose arguments are legit that simple and offer no nuance that makes you think, should be put on ignore, I don't consider the most deluded of the "scorboard matters, nothing else" flagship posters, or the best debaters on the Parcell's argument side (your record and scoreboard is what you are take), I try to read the most reasonable of that side, and ignore the looney. Both sides should kind of do that, and if I'm in the looney bin, that's fine, sometimes my takes are utter manure, but I do try to take them back, apologize, or own the mistake when I agree that they're wrong.
Weah overcooked the pass because he was not patient. The xg is what your odds are of scoring w/ your chances. Even if so that's pretty modest. But that's only possible if the opponent presses and throws #'s forward, which they didn't for 40 minutes of the first half, Canada not for an entire game, and prior to that a friendly w/ this exact same offense at Wales' b-side, against whom we scored 0 goals. Yes, Lletget as a 9 was a problem then. But not necessarily even the primary one. That midfield and the wings weren't creating much to finish.
Read my post earlier. You obviously did not. Average # of points from the 3rd place team in the six Hex years was 15.167. For the PO spot (only in the last 4 competitions) it was 13.25. If you instead just calculate how many points were needed for 3rd/4th (without ties), it drops to 14.167 and around 10 (depending if you take all 6 years or just the past 4). Yes, 15 points does not guarantee you a place. 17 was the highest number for a 3rd place team, 16 for 4th. I'd note that both years those teams had some room to spare, and that 15 points would put a team ahead of 4th every year save 2010 (4th at 16). At that year, 15 is comfortably ahead of 5th. 20 points is way too high. 33% of the time, that would have gotten you first. If you want to win the Hex, then 3 at home and 1 on the road (2 ppg) is a good rule of thumb. It does not guarantee top spot, but it gets you close, and is good enough some years. Thru 4 games, 8 points 8s top right now. It is comfortably more that what you need to qualify. 15 points puts you ahead of 4th every year save one and ahead of 5th every time. If you are looking to qualify, or make the PO, then 15 gets you at least that far every time. 3/0 for qualification is the better benchmark, period. Just a smidge above that is Canada at 7 pts from 4. 6 points from four would put a team ahead if 5th, like it always does.
I don't think either of those was red card worthy, nor do I think the 2nd one was even a foul. I saw a typical offensive performance under Berhalter, where the only threats we had were a couple cheap giveaways and quick transition. In fact, I'm happy the ref made good decisions, as it forced the team to adapt at half time and completely run Jamaica off the field, as we should have done for 90 minutes. We now have 90 minutes of excellent soccer over the last 135 minutes of play. That's pretty good, and I'm hoping to see more of that in Panama.