Now that the euphoria of last minute advancement and depression of elimination has subsided, the question is, how did we actually do?? There was a long and interesting Managing Expectations thread awhile back where we said what we thought would or should happen. So how did we compare to our expectations? And why? For me, I think they played slightly above par for the course. After I saw the draw, I expected them to advance and they did. After that everything is dependent on round of 16 pairings and I therefore had no opinion before we actually knew the opponent. I did not expect them to win the “England” group, so that was a great accomplishment, especially with the handicap of two wrongly disallowed goals. But once they advanced, I updated my expectations and expected them to beat Ghana. But they did not have anything left after chasing the game for 3 matches, and were hamstrung by changes to an effective lineup from the Algeria game, and the performance based necessity of subbing the only two fresh guys... Also, after the way England and Mexico imploded after bad calls, I’m very proud of our team’s mental toughness and will to win. Bottom line, I expected to enjoy our World Cup run, and I sure as hell did.
I agree with the part about winning the group. I think winning the group caused people to retroactively change their expectations. Had we finished second and bowed out to Germany in a respectable fashion, I really don't that there would be so much of a negative reaction on these boards.
pretty much agree with that. i think most, me included, expected us to finish second in the group and face germany in the next round. personally, getting out of the group stages would have counted as a success to me. anything more than that is a bonus. obviously, expectations and/or hopes changed once we won the group and saw an "easier" route to the semis. but i enjoyed the ride. the thrills and the heartbreaks.
I think you guys are missing the the crux of the problem. The problem isn't the result so much as it is the reasons for the result. At halftime we were down 2 subs, both being Bob's changes from the Algeria game. When our players were gassed and we needed offensive power (like Buddle), or a break for the exhausted Dempsey (Stu), we only had one sub to use. The team just gave up after the OT goal they allowed in. Also, we got scored on early in EVERY game, except for the Algeria game in which they hit the crossbar on an open chance very early. Good teams, definitely don't do this. Average teams, don't (or in our case, shouldn't) do this. This was a problem throughout qualifying under Robo Bob. We deserved to win the group, and definitely had one of the weakest groups in the whole tournament. Even if you disagree with me on this, you're wrong. We let go of a great opportunity, and winning our group shouldn't have changed our expectations about defeating a good, but not great, Ghana team (without their best player). We should have taken that game. This will always remind me of disappointment, and if you're happy with our effort, then you're really happy with mediocrity. Why, as fans, should we not expect the best from our team? On paper we have a much more talented team than we had in 2002, yet got bumped one round early. Why, after yet another generally disappointing series of performances by Jozy are we still saying that "it's okay, he's only 20 and has potential to grow?" Sure, he can improve, but this was supposed to be his time to shine as a US striker, and as a finisher he failed. Our expectations of this guy have always been too high, but it won't take many more performances like he had until I have very little to expect. So to wrap this ramble up slightly on topic, our expectations were deservedly high, because of the quality of opponents we had to play, and were projected to play. Aside from that, our expectations should always be high, because the day that they aren't, US Soccer has stagnated.
no i agree that it was the easiest group we've been in. it's just that one sentense that made me laugh.
England game--better than expected result Slovenia game--worse than expected result Algeria game--as expected result Ghana game--worse than expected result I'll let the mathematicians total up the bottom line.
I think everyone would have been happy with either crashing out in the quarters or getting hammered by Germany in the R/O 16. Losing a very winnable game to Ghana, who hit us on a few counter-attacks and took advantage of a horrible starting lineup, just a few days after one of the most euphoric moments in US soccer history, was a very bitter pill to swallow. It's hard to say that they did better or worse than expectations. Most people honestly would have figured them to beat Slovenia and easily defeat Algeria. The draw against England was a surprise. The way they played was at times better and at times worse than I would have figured. They played hard and did well coming from behind but I would have expected them to not have to chase the game every single time. So overall I'd say the run was slightly disappointing, but not a failure.
I think the team did a little better than par. Winning the group was a pretty big deal that I didn't expect. This is magnified a bit by how close to getting through on seven points - exchange the good luck against England and 6 points would still have made me happy. My initial reaction after the first set of games was uncertainty about wanting to face Ghana over Germany. I still feel like we might have been better suited to face the Germans. Expecting a win against Ghana was about as silly as expecting a loss to England - it's all based on resume impressions rather than how the team looks. Then we played Ghana to a tough draw and ultimately a loss. I'm disappointed, but not depressed by that. I do agree with others that the early sub hurt the team. I don't find that the solutions are as blindingly obvious as many suggest. All and all I'm pleased, but still wish for more.
Nothing against you, but you're saying this stuff like eleventy billion people haven't said it already. If Alexi Lalas and John Harkes have mentioned it, you can be pretty sure it's obvious enough to assume we all get it. Everybody knows the problems with giving up goals early, with not scoring from the striker position, with the wasted opportunity of a comparatively weak knockout draw. We get it. I think the point of the thread is to say, on balance, how did the US handle the challenges facing them on June 10? My take: I expect US soccer to make progress, and to raise expectations.I think they did that. So in a weird way you can argue that all the disappointment around here is proof of their success--that we're not all satisfied with just getting out of the group. Does this mean we can expect a trip to the quarters next time around? Of course not. World Cups don't work that way (ask Cote D'Ivoire). But I think the US can start to raise the bar for itself and start thinking of itself as a potential top 8 side.
Results-wise, we exceeded our expectations: we won our group; our expectations would have been to advance (adjusted in-tourney expectations-- the way the bracket lined up for us in the knockouts, the romance of how this team succeeded in its group play games-- made it seem like a disappointment, however, in the moment; that's not fair though-- Ghana are a good team who a lot of people somehow still underrate despite the two WCs-- and in hindsight we left so much out on the field it would've been difficult to keep going, esp with a quick turnaround between games) Performance-wise, we were who we thought we were-- a shaky defensive team with no forwards that is nevertheless able to punch above its weight and play with anyone on the day thanks to intangibles, heart, fitness, a very good midfield, and the few exceptional players we've developed over the course of this decade (LD, Clint, Bradley; ideally Howard and Gooch would've been there too but injuries alas). If we were just a team of battlers without those x factor guys we'd be Slovenia or Algeria; those three guys this time were the difference for us. That makes us imo like a lot of second/third-tier nations-- we have improved technical and tactical skill in some parts of the field, we're good at pressing and pushing and battling; we are ultimately carried when we are not beating ourselves and staying organized, then hoping to place ourselves in a position to make our own luck, rely on set pieces, counterattacking, and our x factor guys. That puts us in a class with Mexico, most of CONMEBOL, Japan/Korea, second-tier Euro nations, the African nations like Ghana and Egypt and Ivory Coast (under Sven at least) that stay organized, and Australia for the most part. It's the likely inability to replace LD and Clint and Howard that scares me most going fwd. We already are weak in other spots and we may become even weaker, but without these leaders and next-level guys we're very average on a stage like this. Even with them and Bradley, we can't impose ourselves on a game against almost anyone at this level, we tend to hang on and exchange punches-- hell, in two World Cups now we've had a lead for exactly two-three minutes of stoppage time over the course of seven games. You can't succeed that way, obviously.
If getting goals from the striker position somehow counted more than goals scored by midfielders we'd have seen Dempsey and Donovan up top. That's just not what we do, our fetish is for midfielders. If a forward really has a great deal of promise we move him further from goal.
Below expectations. Bob was a disaster throughout the tourney and the game that mattered most (Ghana) he failed miserably. Many of his issues during the tourney were factors that have surfaced throughout his tenure. I look forward to a change of direction.
Made me laugh, too. Wow. It was an easy group, though, so was Group A, particularly walking in the front door. Few expected us to finish in first, that was England's reserved spot. Those who say that the team ran out of gas against Ghana are not recognizing that the team was mentally exhausted. Chasing 3 matches isn't just a physical challenge, it is mentally exhausting, particularly how the 3rd match went down. The mental side affects those in the bench, also coaches and fans. IMO, that was overwhelmingly the reason the team couldn't take Ghana. But, I'm disagreeing, so I must be wrong...
Nothing to change for me. I never altered what was a success in my eyes. With our group, qualifying to me was always the baseline expectation. Meeting that expectation meant that the Cup wasn't a failure. But as I also said, it didn't mean it was a success either. It was what we should have expected from the group. A truly successful Cup to me was always winning a knockout game. Again, NOT winning a knockout game doesn't mean it was a failure. It wasn't. I just find/found it funny that so many people after the knockout phase were arguing that this WC was an unqualified and over the top success based upon getting out of pretty much the easiest group we could have drawn. I guess the thrill of winning the group made people lose their heads about it. We had a "eh" WC. Exciting, but still "eh".
Meh, that was about what I expected. The US lost to a team of a similar strength, while creating many more opportunities. We were never outplayed in 4 games. I think that if we could restart the WC tomorrow, we'd likely get second and go out to Germany. If we could restart the Ghana game, I think we'd win 60-70% of the time. It's not embarassing to fall in that 40%, not completely unexpected, just disappointing.
I don't understand why some say losing to Ghana meant falling short of expectations. We played them to a 90-minute draw, which is what I would have expected before the Cup and before the game. I think the problem is that they were a weaker second round opponent than was expected, and expectations of a potential victory therefore increased. But I don't see why they should have increased to the point of being confident of a victory. I think they should have increased to the point of the result that we actually ended up with -- a 90-minute draw with a toss-up thereafter. I tend to agree that we would have had a better chance during the "toss-up" extra time if our players had not been exhausted from constantly chasing the prior games, but I'll admit that's a bit speculative. It's unfortunate that we could not take advantage of a relatively favorable second round draw. But the key word in that sentence is "relatively."
Since the Yanks are the only team to win their group to exit from the Round of 16, imho the Yanks underachieved. The Yanks should have beaten Ghana, who was missing their best player Michael Essien. What hurts the most, was the fact that some poor coaching decisions aided Ghana. Or you one could take the George Lopez answer, "Fools, you should have tried harder". I laughed when I saw it.
Going into this tournament, I would have signed for our results in all honesty. Obviously itbis awful to get eliminated but I had serious concerns that this World Cup could be a debacle. The Gooch and Davies injuries alone were huge causes for concern and, in the end, I think played a role in our elimination. Add in injuries to Dempsey and Holden in the build up, the poor result against the Dutch, the poor result against the Czechs and I had very secret fears that this could be terrible. In the end, some things worked out and some things didn't. We met our expectations. This World Cup wasn't 2002 but it wasn't 1998. Let's not forget that we played four matches and only had a led for two minutes. When faced with that, it's hard to expect a fifth game.
Well considering I picked us to finish first above England on goals and to reach the quarters (albeit beating Australia) it was disappointing. But looking back, we were ranked 14 going into the tournament and made it to the Round of 16, we can still make the claim we are one of the 16 best soccer nations in the world. Par for the course. I think we showed we are the best team in CONCACAF, so again we pared. Overall, we did what were were supposed to do: advance. A QF run would have been nice, but not too surprising.
england was revealed to be a deeply mediocre team. that certainly tempers the accomplishment of winning the group. the semi-final bracket in terms of team elo rankings offered an unprecedented opportunity. the palpable lack of organization saw the team crash out to a very beatable side. the mundial was a disappointment in the end.
Ehhhh.... while I think we are, we certainly didn't prove that. Mexico had a nice decisive win against France (albeit a dysfunctional France team) and didn't look horrible against steamroller Argentina. US and Mexico come out of the World Cup looking about equal IMO, and Mexico will probably still be more highly regarded by foreign observers. 2011 Gold Cup will be a very big deal in terms of CONCACAF dominance.