I'm proud of our team. I'm happy with the result. It wasn't pretty and that doesn't matter. We were never in danger of losing that game. We are now winning games on the road in WCQ with regularity. That has never been the case before. Looking forward to the game versus T&T on Wednesday.
Oh wait I know this one! 1966 England and Soccer related.... hmmm... So easy! This was the year that the Barclaycard was launched in England. You know, the one that would feature as the sponsor of the Barclaycard Premiership!
Indeed it was, but we took advantage well. How exactly is a random deflection off a shot a good bounce? And a diving reaction save, how exactly is that a good bounce? That was a Tim-Howard-is-a-Badass. I didn't find the non-call that egregious either, would have been a soft penalty, and regardless is pretty irrelevant to the "luck" issue.
There used to be that saying when Eric Cantona was on Manchester United "1966 was a very good year for english football: Eric was born"
Have to disagree on all three. 2v3 in the box where Dempsey and Ching both put a ton of pressure on the ball to force mistakes. That's how you make things happen on offense. The bad bounce is that it hit off Boca the way it did. 9 out of 10 times he clears it cleanly. The lucky part about that shot was for Cuba that it hit the guy in the back of the head and it still went on goal. The ball to hand prevented a dangerous cross. Its not an 80% non call. If it blocks a ball going away from the goal maybe, but not a ball right across the 6 yard box. I stand by the fact that we didn't get any lucky bounces or lucky calls last night. You can argue the first one and some might agree with you (although as you see above I don't), but you can't argue the second one at all when the only major non-call of the match went against us. Why not take issue with our poor play overall and lack of chances we created than focusing on this?
One thing to keep in mind, folks. Bob's job isn't to entertain us; that's the job of club team managers. Bob's job is to win games and get the USA qualified for WC2010. So far, we're 4-0 in WCQ games under Bob, including 3 road victories. We should be shouting for joy, not giving him stick for the low scorelines. Yes, at some point, we'll need to play a more flowing, attacking style to get the results. If we play in a meaningful game and don't do that when we need to, then we can give it to Bob. As an "armchair midfielder", if I can figure that much out, so can Bob and his staff. Me, I'm trusting that he knows what he's doing until the results don't come. So far, he has done the following: 1.) Capped something like 67 players; this shows me that he is looking for the talent and willing to try it out, in the appropriate circumstances 2.) Managed for a good mix of a) games that matter, b) friendly games against midlin opponents, and c) friendly games against top opponents. He has handled each game type differently, which tells me that he has a goal for each type of game. FYI, for those who didn't catch it, Cuba vs USA was in category a) with the goal being "get 3 points."
Thread too long, so sorry if this has been hashed, but thought the Cubans played pretty cleanly and no ridiculous rolling around to get cards. Props to them for that.
I wanted to mention that. They are a sporting bunch and they've earned my respect. Fair play to them.
Agreed. They are a real anomaly in CONCACAF. Not to mention their fans as well. Seemed like a solid bunch of people from what I saw on TV and read and heard.
I've been a critic of Big Bob AND especially the empty bucket but am beginning to understand even if I still don't like it. Simply put, you play the game according to your talent. As a country, the US has produced exactly one quality striker and he (McBride) was limited as to the type of game he brought. Donovan is not a post up type striker but plays well when he either uses his pace or has a big guy knocking them down for him to run onto. When a team doesn't have to worry about a post up striker then can select the defensive people necessary to offset LD. We do not have strikers...at all. Jozy, hopefully in 2010 but more likely 2014. No point in opening up and racing forward and have a Twellman or Wolf duff it and open the counter attack. Face it. We are not world class and won't be for a while. Course...I remember when we were happy to not be run off the pitch. It wasn't that long ago as things like this are. A boring empty bucket is better than getting burnt on a counter by the likes of a Cuba or the Guats. We won two games that in days past we were quite capabale of blowing. Slow but steady progress. When we win in Asstega, we'll be another step along the way.
they did not play like a team that, having gone a goal down, really wanted to win the game. after the first few minutes of the second half, they spent a lot of time allowing the u.s. to pass the ball around without pressuring them. when they got the ball they did attack. but especially having seen edu in a very generous mood, and especially with an uneven pitch that they are more accustomed to than the u.s., especially with slick conditions, and most especially, needing points, they did not press the u.s. enough when the u.s. had the ball. my point was that if you want to compare the u.s. score vs cuba with the t&t score vs cuba, you might have to look more closely at if cuba approached both games the same way, (apparently they did not) and you might want to look at t&t's performance against guatemala at home as compared to our performance against guatemala away.
Big props to Dempsey for what truly was a splendid finish. Notice that there was a fullback closing him down, and the 'keeper was cheating towards the post Dempsey beat him at by putting the ball in the side netting. Dempsey also had a brilliant run there in the first half to get in one v. one against the 'keeper. Although Beasley's finishing touch let him down, I was glad to see him creating so many dangerous chances. Heck, I was even glad to see him get called offside -- he's got so much speed, we really do need to try to put him through behind defenses. Although, like most of us, I was hoping for an 8-0 slaughter like the Barbados match, I'm pleased with the professional performance. We took care of business on the road, and now are sitting pretty in the group. And I was glad to see us claim the lion's share of possession
Versus Cuba? DeMarcus Beasley? The more speed you have the less you should have to cheat, no? This is the same issue that Eddie Johnson doesn't seem to understand. If you're as fast as everyone says you are, then stay onside, beat everybody to the ball with your speed... and THEN slow down, shoot wide, lose the ball, or pass backward.
Yeah, gotta agree with you here. Beasley didn't create our scoring opportunities; he pretty much killed them. His defense was good, but on the offense side....yuck.
Am not going to go into a rant. I did not see the game just the highlights, since I live in Uruguay besides the games against Mexico or certain friendlies I may not see a full US national team game again until WC2010. But the results are the same. 1-0, a chippy goal and am suppose to be happy???? This team does not have a prolific goal scorer, a REAL creative midfielder. We leave off Freddy Adu, and Jozy Altidore and we got a kid in Dortmund who is tearing it up and should get called, if he wants. Bob Bradley SUCKS as coach, this team is HORRID to watch, and I saw enough last year to see nothing has changed. Will we get to wc2010. Of course consider the competition. But that we will make any splash NO WAY. This team is on cruise control for another brief stay in South Africa.
Our distribution out of the back was much improved against Cuba (or, as Harkes would say, Coooba -- that guy is a trip with his pronunciations). I've been watching this very closely, and I definitely saw much less of the boom ball from Boca and Gooch, and Howard threw many more balls than usual in this game. So, I think that either Bradley learned something from the Guatemala game or perhaps we resorted to boom ball against Guatemala due to the pitch. In either case, I was pleased to see more short passes and better build up out of the back. Beasley's first touch destroyed innumerable plays for us. Not sure what was going on there (bad pitch, wrong cleats, off night, little bit of each), but he was truly dreadful on the ball. Dempsey, on the other hand, looked much improved. Glad to see him running at the defense and creating (and finishing) chances. I liked what I saw a lot. Edu had so-so game. His passing out of the back was poor. Too many give aways. On the other hand, his defense was very good and he played quite well on the offensive end, such as his sweet pass to Ching that should have been one-timed. Even though I doubt Ching would have hit it on frame, that's a ball that you simply must volley. Hejduk was a beast in the first half. Definitely the best player on the field. Laugh all you want, but he didn't put a foot wrong that whole first half. Perfect defense, great crosses. Seriously. His second half wasn't as good but, for whatever reason, that was mainly because the team stopped looking for him on the right flank. He was open a lot, but they just didn't feed it to him over there. I think Hejduk earned the start against T&T and I hope he gets it.
I agree. In fact, I found it startlingly refreshing when the first Cuban player was being given a yellow, that he stood in front of the ref with a respectful posture and contrite look of acceptance on his face. He didnt turn his back on the ref and try to either deny responsibility for the foul or to diss the ref.
He just got on with it, didn't he? In fact, I think he made sure the American player was OK, not with an overwrought or cloying demonstration of disingenuous concern but with a quick pat. That team was such a breath of fresh air. You know what else? I'm a pretty devout Roman Catholic. But it was great to watch a Latin team that didn't approach the game as if they were seminarians at a ninety minute liturgy.
I don't think it was his boots; he changed them 3 times during the match, and he had the touch of a baby elephant in all sets. custar
Beasley has always had the first touch of a sex offender. It is not his strength. His strength is running on the shoulder of the last defender and having balls played into him. Of course, that is dependent on our midfield seeing his runs and being able to actually spring him behind the defense. Just watch any of his tape at PSV as a winger. Beasley is the type of player that becomes better when his midfield improves. The worse your center midfield is the worse Beasley is because he is not designed to beat defenders with the ball at his feet. Someone needs to smack some balls into space for him to run onto, of course our entire midfield is too busy guarding the top of our penalty box so they are 60 yards behind the play at all times, making Beasley look a lot worse than he is. What Bob is asking him to do completely minimizes his strengths and emphasizes his weaknesses. Beasley is going to become really, really good when someone with the vision of Adu is finally entrusted into the midfield.
Yes, Beasley's first touch is never great, but he doesn't usually knock the ball out of bounds virtually every time he gets it. He usually just makes life difficult for himself, whereas against Cuba he made it impossible.