Coming out of Group C as the leader, I thought we were looking pretty good. The Ghana loss hurt of course, but what really got me thinking was England's performance against Germany. England were the measuring stick in our group - they were our biggest competition for 1st place in the group, and the seeded team from our group. We didn't dominate England and by far, England had the better chances and ball posession against us. Shots were in favour for England, shots on goal were in favour for England, as well as corner kicks. We were lucky to draw them 1-1 at the end with the Robert Green howler. Watching how England were utterely dominated by Germany, I think our group was really that weak. Maybe losing 2-1 or 1-0 to Germany is one thing, but losing 4-1 to Germany is another. Somehow, I think our Confederations Cup form last year was way better than our form this year, despite the fact that we made the round of 16 in the World Cup (of course, we had Charlie Davies at the Confed Cup). I wouldn't hesitate to say we were a top 16 world team for the Confederations Cup last year, but I don't know ifI can say that about us in the World Cup this year. Where would you rank us out of the 32 teams? Given that we made the round of 16, we should be ranked at least 16, but IMO, neither England nor the USA played like a top 16 team in this World Cup.
We have done better than the 3 other round of 16 losers so we rank at least 13 and could be 9 by the end of business Tuesday. Our FIFA rank is 14 so that's about what we should have done.
We'll know a little more after Ghana-Uruguay.I expect Uruguay to house Ghana like they would have us. Germany -Argentina in the QFs should be a great game.
Given the matches we had, you could even say we under-performed. I think we beat Ghana > 50% (55? 60?) of the time. As far as how we stand in the world, I do believe we are firmly planted around the 10-15 ranking... but deservingly so, not just based on some optimistic paper results (which may have been the case when we reached previous highs).
That game changes if the goal isn't taken away. If it's 2-2 at the half everything changes tactically and psychologically. England got caught on a counter to make it 3-1 when they left themselves vulnerable - they'd have surely been more conservative if the game was tied.
We out created scoring chances the teams we played, Bradley gave too much respect towards England. We should finish the Ghana game 3-1, but we've very poor quality strikers.
we only won one game at the last second. how is it that you think it made us look better? slovenia is a very good team that could have gone through, they knocked out russia. algeria is a solid team as well, they knocked out egypt. england is one of the better teams in the world, just lacking in the mental toughness arena. so we were who we though we were and we let ghana off the hook. simple as
I honestly think the group made us look worse. Slovenia and Algeria aren't great teams, the US had to scramble to tie the game with Slovenia and it took until the 91st minute before scoring against Algeria. Taking first in the group was nice, but honestly, the US had a lead for a whopping total of 2 minutes over three games and came very close twice to crashing out in round one. We ended up with 5 points, we SHOULD have ended up with 7 points.
We have strikers? Last I checked we had a 20 year old prospect and a bunch of MLS guys. It's going to take more time to develop a pool of strikers that can convert chances on a regular basis at this level.
To answer the title question. As I've posted elswhere and considering we heald a lead for a grand total of 3 minutes in the entire tournamet, yes.
yes. it was a weak group headlined by a weak england squad. to have it come down to the final game in group play is disappointing as it was clearly one of the easiest pools for both england and the US. it was good to see that the talent is there but coaching is needed to get the most out of the talent.
Ivory Coast for sure. Put Ivory Coast in our group instead of Algeria, and I"m not so sure we would have made it to the round of 16. Maybe South Africa as well. If we use Mexico as a measuring stick, South Africa did pretty well in their group but were unlucky not to get through. South Africa imploded against Uruguay, but otherwise, they did pretty well in the rest of their games.
I think we are that much talented. England had a horrible time with Algeria, and with us. We did great in the CONFEDERATIONs CUP. We are good. We still lack the physicallity/speed of the europeans, and the technicality of the South Americans. Regardless, we can keep up with the best of them. We are no longer significantly overclassed. Thank you MLS.
With us playing England first, and especially since we got the draw, it was always going to come down to the last group game. Even if we had (officially) beaten Slovenia. Like the other poster said, 2-2 at halftime in the England game changes the dynamics. I still think they'd have lost, though.