In the Algeria game we had only 14 "launches", retaining 5 of them. As a result, the more controlled play led to much more possession, effectiveness, and success. That is the key to gaining results for us. Controlled ball mixing balls to feet and probing passing. Of course, if we need a goal late in the game, load the box and send in a ball to the far post for someone to knock down, but it shouldn't be our standard play throughout the game. So ... well done team! You controlled the game against Algeria and generated many more quality chances. Now if we could only concentrate a little more and actually finish some of them ...
Are Timmy's chucks considered launches? Because they started several counter-attacking chances (including the big one).
I noticed the same thing. We've been playing the ball nicely out of the back. Maybe it's a fluke. Maybe it reflects the lack of high pressure from Algeria. Let's hope it continues.
I think we need to clarify here. Launch is not necessarily a long pass in my book. In my book, a launch is a ball that by-passes the midfield players or the middle third of the field. If you use that definition, then Timmy's outlet throws (he had two real beauts) were not launches.
yep timmy had a couple of nice throws. hope he sticks with the throwing approach as his distribution has been average at best otherwise.
Ghana will use high pressure on us, I would imagine. This is probably one of the few things that are known about the US team. We are fast, fit, lean and mean, but do struggle with constant high pressure in the defensive third. My hope is that this opens space for Bradley to pull the strings in the midfield if we can get it to him through the press.
Indeed. Just ask Italy (or Australia, from our game against them) what can happen if you try to play the ball out of the back against pressure. Sometimes "launching" is a very good idea. I think that the OP's measure of "launching" should distinguish between clearing the ball out of pressure and the aimless route 1 soccer that we all hate. I agree that the latter doesn't seem to work very well for us (at least in terms of (1) maintaining possession and (2) getting touches on the ball by our two best players, Donovan and Dempsey). The former, well, all of Italy is wishing today that they'd played just a little more long-ball yesterday.
No, I think the OP fails to point out that man for man we were the better team in games 2 and 3 are are capable of a better controlled passing game versus such an opponent. Versus England we are not capable of playing through the midfield on a consistent basis (and perhaps Rico Clark made us that much less capable of doing so).
Well, of course we'd be able to prevent ourselves from launching against Algeria. Against Brazil, Germany, et al? A little harder with the extra high pressure.
Of course the fewer "launches" had nothing to do with it being a more open game because both teams knew they had to win that game to advance. *sarcasm* The more one team attacks, the more the other can counter= equal fewer times the "launching" tactic would be uses.
FIFA match data: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/organisation/documents/matchdocumentgroup.html US-England: US completed 31 of 90 long passes. 14.2% of our 218 completed passes were "long" by FIFA definitions. US-Slovenia: US completed 35 of 87 long passes. 11.6% of our 303 completed passes were "long" by FIFA definitions. US-Algeria: US completed 59 of 102 long passes. 17.8% of our 331 completed passes were "long" by FIFA definitions. So, according to FIFA, the US attempted more long passes in the Algeria game than in either of the other games. The US also completed more long passes in the Algeria game. And, the US had a higher percentage of long passes in the Algeria game. These are the official numbers. Your "launch" numbers seem dubious to me.
Long passes, clearances from the back, and route 1 soccer are all related, but different things. I too noticed that Howard was taking more short goal kicks, and that Bradley and Edu seemed to be coming deeper to take the ball from our D in this match. However, I also noticed that fairly often, Bradley and Edu seemed to take the ball from the D move a few yards forward, and then launch it. Maybe that accounts for both the impression that the OP communicates as well as the higher completion rate stats quoted above.
Interesting data. But I think most of us make a distinction between a launch and a long pass. For me the latter involves a player taking the time to pick up his head and survey the field. Launching typically involves a hospital ball or a poor touch that results in the receiving player just wanting to get rid of the ball. I don't think FIFA's data provides much insight when it comes to this distinction.
I understand the potential difference. But the opening poster has only declared that he has good data on the number of "launches" per game, while he has a known agenda he is promoting. So, I reserve the right to be skeptical of his definition and his data collection. Meanwhile, the only official match data indicates that the US tried MORE long passes and completed MORE long passes in the Algeria game, the game which is uniformly seen as the US's best, most complete performance of the Cup, so far. The US was also more accurate in its long passing vs Algeria. Why both more long passes and better accuracy? Probably because Algeria didn't press our backs and midfielders as much and gave the US more time on the ball than the prior two opponents. So the US played "better" as a result. This really isn't shocking. Good teams that press the US cause us trouble, espcially for our backs. Teams that give us more time to compose ourselves give us less trouble, and less need to launch hasty balls out of our defensive end. The OP suggests his (questionable) data is a sign that the US used a better tactical plan, and subsequently played better. His data "confirms" his opinion and his agenda. Equally plausible is that the US faced an opponent willing to defend and counter rather than press. And that our talent level was better than the opponent's talent this game, too. Both factors would allow the US to play with more composure and accuracy. For many years some fans have believed the US plays hurried long balls out of the back because Bob Bradley tells them to; he chooses dumb tactics and a better (foreign) coach would choose smarter more skillful tactics. More likely, the reality is that the US plays hurried long balls when facing better talent and/or pressing opponents. When opponents don't have better talent, a pressing style, or a significant home field advantage (Saprissa, Azteca), the US has proven capable of more composed play. Yesterday the US used Algeria's low-pressure, counter-attacking style to serve more accurate passes of all kinds -- short, medium, and long. We played more long passes this game than either of the other two games, because we could. We paniced less this match because we had time on the ball and a slight talent advantage. And these factors helped the US create many dangerous scoring chances. And get a shutout for the first time since last year. The title of this thread could just as easily be: More success = less launching Or more accurately: More composed time on the ball = less launching = better passing of all kinds.
Another reason we had better accuracy against Algeria is that we had Dempsey and Altidore up front recieving those balls instead of Findley and Altidore. If you watch the Slovenia game, our goals came from those long balls- but without Findley in the line up. He just doesn't have the touch or soccer IQ. I am afraid he is going to be back in teh starting line up against Ghana. I hope not.
US should get more technically gifted players so they don't have to resort to launching. I have no stats
It's been said already but it's worth repeating. Algeria gave the US lots of time on the ball in defense and in midfield. Even the less technical players were comfortable. Ghana is a young and athletic team. The pressure will be higher and we'll see more long balls and bad clearances. I'm hoping confidence is high enough for the US to make some good plays through midfield, though.
I define a launch as an aimless, hopeful ball from the back that completely bypasses the midfield. Not all long passes are launches. If a pass is controlled, calculated, and weighted well to feet or to space, I don't consider it a launch. Timmy's throws from his box are NOT launches because they meet this criteria. His goalkicks are launches.