Enough friendlies with the meek

i think we're all in agreement that this game pretty much sucked but unfortunately, it's what we will see in qualifying so it may be best that we get used to playing against teams that drop 10/11 guys behind the ball and look for am occasional counter. our guys need to figure out how to beat teams that play like this otherwise, they will all continue to do it

 

That's exactly why we needed this friendly. Not for entertainment value, but because we have to be better when teams try this stuff against us. Hopefully we'll learn something to allow us to break down the next bunker we face and discourage teams from playing this way against us. Weaker teams will keep on doing this to us until we prove it won't work anymore.

 

As frustrating as it is for me to watch, I don't really consider it pathetic. If Guatemala is ever going to make it to a World Cup, they're going to have to go through some (or at least draw with some) vastly superior teams to do so: USA, Mexico, Costa Rica. They're doing what they can do to get a result against teams that are incredibly better than they are...and it worked. Remember, this game wasn't just for the benefit of the USA, it is a learning experience for them too.

People leveled the same charge against Greece in their Euro Championship campaign, but they won with what they had...and winning is the point of the game. If everyone's interested in style points, watch ice skating or platform diving.

Well, these are the type of teams we have to face to get to the World Cup. We have to face this kind of team as well as others. The US more than likely needs to play many more friendlies than the average European or South American team to get ready (the same could be said for Australia too probably.)

Exactly.

 

Yup. Thanks. Now I don't need to post.

 

When were talking about a team like Greece, we're talking about the threat of Zagorakis to Charisteas on the break. But let's face it Guatemala has absolutely ZERO Chance of threatening us on our home soil, especially with our top team playing. If they pack it in, and we don't score, it's just unlucky. 80-90% of the time we'll score in this situation, but if we run in to one of those nights where it just doesn't happen for us, we can take our 0-0 draw go home.

What concerned me about tonight is the lack of chances we created. I think this is due to our inability to work off each other and create combinations on the ground. We're better suited to an even game, or a game that we have to do the majority of the defending. That way we can get out with our athleticism on the break and use the space. I want to see us mimick arsenal in these guatamala like situations... though I don't want their perfect chance only mentality.

 

Keep in mind also that tonight we had two players get their first cap and several others that had five or less. There was a ton of international newbies out there.

 

don't you think that frequent long balls were those attempts to break down the bunker defense? EPL tend to do that to keep bunker defenses honest. I agree that we do need to keep facing teams that play bunker defense so we can learn to figure how to break them to make them pay for it.

 

still, deep in our very deepest heart of hearts, we are a counter-attack team. Bora may be in the Carribean, but he left a little tattoo on the USMNT's ass - and a long lasting dose of the doorbolt, Serb-style.


(I don't really blame Bora I just saw him on the sidelines of a game this week - but I do think we have not completely shaken the counter-attack style - I know it is supposed to have morphed into a "high pressure" style but when a team won't push forward ever, we still don't exaclty know what to do.)

 

rep.

Beside all of that, who would/could we play? Most of Europe is in Euro '08 qualifying. Most of South America is looking at potential opponents in Copa America (Brazil v. Chile)

Now the part that might really hurt: Many of the teams that would be a "stiffer challenge" for the USMNT (ie Germany, Holland, Italy) have fans who would probably say the same thing "why are we playing low level sides that won't provide us a proper challenge?"

That isn't to say those kind of countries would never play a friendly against us, just not this time of year very often.

 

here's the thing about soccer and "meek" sides, they can come to your venue and get out with a 0-0 draw and a point. had this game had meaning (other than as an exercise for the players and coaches), that would be worrisome.

it was frustrating to watch, and not nearly as entertaining as the 3-1 open game against Ecuador. But these types of Friendlies versus a 4-5-1 playing Guatemala side are useful. a couple of goals from the guys in the new blue jerseys, and everyone would be a lot happier.

because it's Concacaf, the US is going to face some meek/bunkering competition. although the USMNT themselves are no long meek in the international arena, it is up to them to work on ways to win these types of games and earn the 3 full points when it matters. the Gold Cup will be an interesting test, as we'll face this same team again.

 

I agree we need to stop playing friendlies against teams like this. It's bad enough we have to play them in qualifying. Playing a lot of these Central American teams is like attending a workshop on how not to play the game. They play with no honor and have no respect for the game.

 

with this kind of attitude i really hope the USMNT can meet the demands of its fans and sail through competitions like the Gold Cup and World Cup Qualifying. because if not, these boards will become an ugly place.

the US does well in the Gold Cup and in WCQers because of the fact that they play some of these types of friendlies and work to figure out what it takes to be successful against teams that play a bunkering/counter-attacking style. One can argue that the US played such a valiant game (and got a point) against Italy at the 2006WC because it had experience playing tight games against defensive competition (even though most Concacaf "meek" competition isn't at -- or anywhere near -- the level of ability of the WC-winning nation).

but it is a bit of a double-edged sword, as clearly more friendlies are needed against quality sides willing to play an open game (like Ecuador and better) to improve the US's WC performances against the likes of the Czech Republic and Ghana.

the calendar year is only so long and there are only so many Fifa dates available for international matches, and the US can't possibly play all the matches it needs and the friendlies its fans want.

 

Now our three new English-based defenders can learn what it's like to play against an opponent who dives constantly, wastes time, and with blind or hostile refs.

 

These games were scheduled because they'll prep the US for who'll they'll be facing this summer. Sure playing some bigger, better teams would be nice in preparation for the WC, but for the Gold Cup and Copa America, these opponents were relatively good choices.

 

funny, this is the kind of stuff people used to say about the usmnt when we played "bigger" teams. we would always say "a draw is a draw" or "a win is a win" when we managed a 1:0 win on a good counter. now the tables seemed to be turned and we're the ones pissed off.

just like those "bigger" teams then, now we'll have to figure out how to win against teams who bunker, especially since the road to the wc finals will go through a few of them.

 

This is what I was thinking as well. It reminded me of the Netherlands game a few years ago (2/28/2004) where the Dutch coach was openly critical of the negative US game plan and style. I cannot find the article with his quotes but here is the SoccerTimes article containing this comment:

"The style the U.S. played is one its fans must get used when the Americans are up against a superior opponent. Essentially, the U.S. played a 4-5-1 with only Brian McBride up top. This system features team defense, trying to get two or three players around the ball whenever it comes deep into its defensive third, and then depends on quick counters and set plays to create chances."

http://www.soccertimes.com/usteams/2004/feb18.htm

Frankly, I think the Mexican team would say that we still play that way.

 

What "meek" would that be?

Ecuador - who advanced to the second round at the 2006 World Cup?
Mexico - who advanced to the second round at the 2006 World Cup?

I can see Guatemala being "meek", but they definitely controlled the game last night, not us. And as to the Gold Cup and WCQ, we need to learn how to beat these teams.

Denmark - I'm willing to give you this one.

1) I think the premise of this thread is wrong. We haven't played a bunch of friendlies against "meek" teams.

2) The elite teams, for the most part, aren't that interested in playing friendlies against us. If they win, so what. If they lose, everyone gets fired.

 

I don't think that is a big factor. IMO, the bigger factor is that we do not play like a stereotypical European or S. American team. If the elite teams want preparations against such teams, we do not serve as very good practice opponents. The distance required to play to the states is another factor (assuming the US wants to play at home).

 

Bradley says....

I agree with him and those here that say it's a learning experience and somewhat necessary preparation for the GC and WCQ. This game was borderline unwatchable, but it did serve a purpose.

 

If Bradley wants to play friendlies against teams that he will see in qualifying then he should play Costa Rica, Jamaica, Panama, or Honduras. At least these guys will come to play a little bit. We are still building the sport in this country so the American mainstream needs as little exposure as possible to teams like Guatemala. They showed us a little bit of everything that is wrong with the sport. Dirty play, faking injury, diving, etc. This is the same way their U-20s played against our boys in Panama. There is really nothing more to learn from these types of teams. The US had a few good looks and they failed to convert. They need to learn to take their chances better. Move on.

 

Actually I thought the point of the friendlies was for players to gain practice and experience with each other for upcoming competition. It is also meant to build the team for the future by giving younger players opportunities.

This was a friendly played late on Wednesday night, just after a good game last Sunday. Seems like a fine time to play a lesser opponent if your concern is about the exposure of soccer to the mainstream, considering it likely wasn't much.

Like it or not, the US must play bunkering defense teams just like everyone else in the world. A midweek friendly is the perfect time for practice against such a team.

Once the US learns how to consistently score against a bunkered defense, then it should be a non-issue. One score and Guatemala would have had no choice but to start attacking. That would have opened up the game for more US goals.

 

Bradley can't even get the word "interim" removed from his title and you think he's picking the opponents?

 

I wasn't questioning their bunker tactics as much as I was their cheating. I do not think that anybody in their right mind would say the US has no honor or respect for the game.

 

I am a United Sates soccer fan.

I love my team.

I want my team to get better.

I will not compromise this for anyone!