Match #34 - Iran v. USA

And 7 out of 8 finalists in that time have been from UEFA.

In terms of this tournament… the big UEFA teams haven’t been as dominant as usual but who has? Brazil & Argentina have been lacklustre too. France & Spain amongst the best.

 

What makes me laugh is that now some are saying because European teams are playing Nations League instead friendlies against South Americans, Africans, Asians is the reason they are being knocked out when in 2014 you only had 6 teams out of 12 from UEFA in the last 16.

And in which leagues are the players of those Confederations playing? Yes, they are playing UEFA competitions. Jeez, if after 2002 another non European team wins the WC we have to finish the Nations League because you know, never in the history of football Brazil or Argentina won this competitions.

 

There are 3 concerns and 1 silver lining for the US against Holland IMO:

1. the US hasn't shown it has a bench nearly as good as its top guns -- and its top guns need to deal with knocks, injuries and question marks regarding their fitness to play. Just being able to suit up isn't enough; refer to Sardar Azmoun against the US before being subbed out at halftime and his comments since.
2. the US, at the level it showed the first 60 minutes against Wales, England and Iran, should be favored to beat Holland. But that is a hard level to repeatedly duplicate. Especially factoring fatigue, injuries and point 1 above.
3. the US has begun creating better chances but still not shown a target forward that will scare its opponents.
4. the good news is that Holland have shown to be at the level of Denmark. Sounds more scary than it ought to be. Ask Tunisia and Australia -- 2 teams around the level of the US in the 2nd half of this tournament when its top guns weren't blazing with top level moves and passes.

 

As for Iran, contrary to @persianfootball, I don't think Iran took on an intentionally defensive posture in the 1st half. Iran actually did not employ a low block, but in the first half, the US did a masterful job winning quite a few duels and executing some great plays. Their 2 goals, one of which was ruled offside by inches, were against an Iranian defense that was set high. By contrast, our best players were not at their best in some critical moments that could have been but came to nothing. May it was a bit of mental and physical fatigue; maybe the extra stress from this important and politically loaded game; or maybe it was some level of complacency or lack of urgency knowing a draw would be enough?

What made the 2nd half look different were again the same factors now in reverse: Iran was beginning to win more individual duels, some of the best US players had or were getting injured or tired, being subbed out; greater urgency by Iran and a greater sense of danger eventually forcing the US to bunker. Even then, some of Iran's best players were hardly our more famous ones. In fact, they were 2 fresh legs with Torabi and Jalali winning their duels and generally outpacing or beating their marker. Ezatollahi, while never much of a runner, was beginning also to stamp his authority in midfield. But neither Taremi nor Ghodoos showed as well as I would have hoped. Taremi with all the running in almost 100 minutes each game might have had an excuse. Azmoun certainly had an excuse in the first half since he was even a question mark as to his fitness after the knocks he took against Wales. But Ghodoos had fresh legs; just not the right shots and moves.

The only thing I blame Queiroz for against the US was not going with all the fresh and equally and more meritorious choices he had on his bench. He could and IMO should have fielded the fresh legs that experienced and very good players like Kanani, Shoja Khalilzadeh, Amiri, Moharrami, Jalali and Torabi. If I were him, in fact, I would have used the exact same starting lineup in this particular game as the one against Uruguay in September, except with Azmoun not fit, starting Taremi instead and with Jahanbakhsh suspended, using Gholizadeh:

Iran v Uruguay lineup -- the ones in red available fresh legs who didn't start against the US and Jahanbakhsh suspended:

Beiranvand -- Moharammi, Kanani, Khalilzadeh, Jalali - Ezatollahi - Jahanbakhsh, Ghodoos, Hajsafi, Torabi -- Azmoun

The idea that we would leave out 7 players from our most successful friendly match, when 6 of them were available and fit, while among the 4 we kept, 2 were doubtful due to fitness (Beiranvand, Azmoun) is one of those peculiar decisions that only a coach who takes 25 players (including 4 keepers) when he could have taken 26 can explain and defend.

 

I never said we played too defensive in the first half. What I said was that Azmoun should not have started, we were effectively playing with 10 men the first half because Azmoun was up front doing nothing against a speedy US side. The strategy was to give long balls to an injured and out of form Azmoun. CQ tried the same thing against Japan in the Asian cup semifinals (and Azmoun was in form back then..) and that was also a fail. Azmoun also didn't contribute anything to defense, so we had 1 less player defending and it made us get exposed, and it also caused Taremi, by far our best goalscorer of the tournament, who scored 2 against England, to drop down deeper, which is perhaps why he made such poor decisions the rare cases he did go up front. I said the same things against Wales and warned about this and we were about to lose 2 points for no reason against Wales until the red card, but those who know nothing about football and only go by the scoreline were praising CQ for the Wales match, but after Costa Rica and Qatar Wales is the worst team in this tournament, they did absolutely nothing, if we played a better team we would have been exposed with this strategy, and that obviously was the case against the US.

 

@vancity eagle

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/match-34-iran-v-usa.2123252/page-7#post-40996021

 

We disagree about Wales. Azmoun did very well against Wales until he was gassed and had to be subbed out. More importantly even, although not as visible in our chances until the 2nd goal, Taremi as a link up player doing several things all on his own as a LWF was simply awesome against Wales -- as awesome as he is in that role as he is for Porto. Taremi can be a great #9 player, although a fit Azmoun is probably a better #9. But, especially given Iran's weaknesses, Taremi is often best used as our combination #10 and #8 player.

 

To clarify, I never said Taremi is not good at LWF or AM, he is good at that, I am aware, but context is everything. He was by far out best goal scorer in the tournament: this means it made no sense to play him anywhere else, especially when he had to feed someone like Azmoun who was ineffective. It simply made no sense.

Re: Azmoun, I guess we disagree, all I saw was an injured out of form relatively slow Azmoun who was a half threat at best. He picked up like 3 knocks during the game, it was visible he was not healed to the point of having a starting role. He had 1 chance that he would usually score but due to his lack of pace the angle got closed and he hit the post, it makes no sense to put a lone slow striker if the strategy is to have him chase long balls. I am baffled at CQs selection this world cup, I don't know what was going through his head this time.