Algeria played for the scoreless draw?

International gamesmanship. Isn't that obvious?

 

I'm not sure they played for a draw; they had plenty of counterattacks, even though they turned out to be pretty weak. Their attacking was just poor all tournament, and I think they were thoroughly outmatched against the U.S. today. From the start, the U.S. seemed much more invested in the game emotionally than the Algerians. I think they might have been a little deflated when England went up on Slovenia so early.

 

They weren't wasting time at the end.

 

Also, ultimately they were exposed on the counterattack on teh winning goal. It's not like they had 7-8 defenders back on that one.

I agree there seemed to be a lack of urgency. I imagine it was a combination of being over-matched and simply not having the attacking prowess to really put the US under siege.

 

It was an interesting situation. They needed to win but they also knew that the Americans most likely needed to win so they left it to us to do all the pushing forward while they counterattacked. If they had been any good at it, it likely would have been a good strategy.

 

Given that they had so many players forward, with so many scoring chances (for example the free header just before Landon's goal) - it would not be accurate to say that they played for a draw. Not at all. They didn't bunker at all. They attacked to the end - not just as successfully.

They just didn't have the desperation at the that the american players had.

To say that they played 'negative soccer' - well if you have that opinion, you don't know much about soccer. Or you have a short memory. We *wish* that all our opponents were as positive as Algeria.

 

I think their strategy was to let the US come forward, then try to counter. It almost worked; they had the one off the crossbar early, and several other good opportunities wasted with bad shooting.

I think what we heard from Ian at the end was surprise that Algeria didn't seem to have the intensity needed to score. But then Harkes pointed out what was probably the case; Algeria were just too tired by the end.

 

Yeah, I agree.

Been really interesting to hear Ian Darke. The guy is awesome, but he has really warmed up to the US line of thinking. The biting critique of Algeria's play was another example of that. He called it "dreadful" that they were not seemingly playing for the 2-0 win they would have needed to advance.

I think it was unwarranted. I think their manager knew their strengths, that they could not play a possession game against us. it wasn't that bad of a plan. if they would have gotten that early goal, it may have worked. it was a little disarming the way they approached the last 20 minutes or so ... but as others pointed out, i think that was more because they were dog tired than anything.


i was mad at Algeria at the time, but looking back, it wasn't a terrible gameplan. their counterattacking created enough chances where if they had a decent finisher they could have gotten 2 or 3 goals.

 

I thought they were playing for a draw at times, but obviously in the 91st minute, they had numbers foward and that cost them the game and gave us the win.

So its a yes and a no, if they were actually playing for the draw it all fell apart in the last few moments.

 

It certainly seemed like they were simply trying not to lose in the second half. They went for it in the first, but I think they heard the score from the other game during the break and figured they weren't going to be able to pull off 2-0 or better, so they weren't really gunning it like they should have.

 

Personally, I don't get the time wasting they did when it was 0-0. I guess they really valued that point that would have got them off the overall bottom of the standings - where they are now, tied with France.

 

Hey Fischer - Where's the "I was at the game" report/post??

 

Internet was out at my house, so I couldn't do it at the time. Right now, it's all just a crazy emotional blur of a game.

 

C'mon man - pull yourself together! What was it like being there??

 

So do a Hunter S. Thompson schtick.

Come on,you've always secretly wanted to.

 

Exactly. I felt the say way watching the game live - they were just playing not to lose, more interested in stopping us than going through. Then, at night, the replay was on so I watched the second half.

They were pushing people forward. I think the reasons it appeared they were playing defensively were because...

1. They play a natural counter-attack game and the coach believed it would not survive a purely wide open game with the US. So, you lay back and wait and hope for a little luck. This contrasts with Greece which was hoping for a tie against Arg (rightlfully since they would get blown out if they pushed forward even a little) and hoping for a Nigeria win.

2. They were gassed by minute 65 so it looked like they were not pushing forward consistently, as we were. On our goal, we were sprinting down the field in the 92nd minute, which is very impressive. They were trying but were lagging behind.

 

Also, the US strength is in counter-attacking, and the US has had issues with giving up counters when pushing forward. The Algerian strategy fit their personnel, and it was a good strategy to use against the US. As a US fan, it was frustrating, but I can't blame them for it. And they certainly weren't as defensive as, say, Guatemala plays against us.

 

You obviously do not belong here.

 

Algeria was playing to win. If they were playing for a draw, I doubt we would've scored. They had numbers forward trying to get the game winner when Timmie made that save and started the break with the outlet pass. The numbers they had forward combined with a fast counter attack and dog-tired legs allowed the USA to have a 4 on 2 (+GK) break culminating in Donovan's goal. If Algeria were playing for a draw, they would not have pushed so many players into our half of the field.

If they were a bit "lazy" towards the end, I think it was because they were running out of gas. USA's fitness probably gave us the Win.

 

Yup, spot on. They clearly pushed forward in an undisciplined manner late. That was how we got that 100% chance on the counter. And yes, US fitness won it. I saw Algeria tire against England and was hoping for more of the same vs. the US. Algeria did not disappoint.

Still, their overall Algerian posture was not all that positive. What you saw was not a team that wanted the win until about the last 10 minutes. It might be true that they figured they could not win in an open game for 90 minutes. But there was no sense of urgency or calculated risk taking by Algeria.

Judging by the success of the one clean US counter, though, Algeria probably made the right choice. It's just their counters were not very threatening and they probably would have had a better chance of scoring any goal if they had built some attacks.

 

If they'd won 1-0 and England had gotten another, they would've gone through.

Who knows about the team, but their fans seemed absolutely ecstatic to get a 0-0 draw and knock the Great Satan out.

 

^This.

They were a classic counterattacking team. And form what I saw, they didn't know how to play any other style. Very one-dimensional. It cost them the game.