Looking for some confirmation of a couple observations. US looked gassed around minute 65? Maybe a little sooner. Weah was looking to make those runs behind the defense a lot but we were late to pick him out or just didn't even try. Pulisic was guilty of this many times holding onto the ball too long rather than releasing Weah with space ahead of him early. The longer he held the ball the space in behind quickly disappeared.
There's a certain vocal subset of US fans who start with the premise that Gregg is wrong and MLS is bad, and then look for things to justify that opinion. I see people calling Gregg an idiot for starting Sargent and saying Haji Wright belongs nowhere near the national team... I guarantee that some of the same people were clamoring for Sargent and Wright the day before the roster was announced.
Some players were gassed around the 70 minute mark. I think the lack of match fitness got to a lot of players. If Pulisic is able to pick his head up for 15 minutes in the second half, the US might have gotten another goal or two.
Interesting statistic: the USMNT has a 100% record (5 for 5) of advancing from the World Cup group stage after getting at least a point out of the first game.
So Argentina and Messi's first goal is a penalty after VAR. Just now Argentina had a goal during play called offside due to VAR. I thought it was offside in real time. There will be plenty of stoppage this tournament.
This game isn't going to end 1-0. I expect Saudi Arabia will get burned for at least another goal playing that high line. Argentina looks surprisingly shaky at the back and a bit uncomfortable playing out of the Saudi press. I fully expect to see both teams score between now and the end of the game.
Ref is making an infuriating number of late calls. Correct calls, but the hesitation delays the game and players are complaining when they think the other team's gotten away with something.
What a finish. The chance came from a bad turnover at midfield. Argentina is still having a surprisingly hard time playing out of Saudi Arabia's high press.
I'm really starting to think some of these fields are tilted or something. That's the only thing that can explain some of these games.
I was just wondering, both in USA-Wales and in Argentina-Saudi, if there was a big wind advantage going toward one goal, because in both games the team attacking the goal on the right side of the camera seemed to always be in control. But the weather report says wind is just 7 mph in Doha.
Granted, Saudi Arabia have a near-homefield advantage for this tournament, but they really came to play after going down 1-0. Argentina not looking like a would-be semifinalist now.
There's almost a 500 point difference in Elo rating between these teams. The Elo ratings treat home field as being worth 100 points. Even if Saudi Arabia were treated as playing at home, the 400 point difference would mean a 91% win rate for Argentina. On neutral soil, it's about 95%.
The really shocking thing is Argentina's inability to play out of the back. They're supposed to be good at that.
Actually I misread the numbers. The difference is a little more than 500 points. If Saudi Arabia pulls out the win, this would be the second-biggest upset in World Cup history in terms of Elo rating difference. The only time a team has overcome a larger difference to win? USA-England in 1950, a 513-point difference. Argentina's advantage is 508 points. The next biggest upset was Ghana vs. Czech Republic in 2006, a 398 point difference.
Argentina was trying to stay simple and win over the top.. seemingly not wanting to do the dirty work of passing through the Saudis.. now theyve let them build up some belief so now its going to be much harder
Remains true still: Intensity beats skill when the skill can't match, or gets frazzled by, the intensity.