Lessons learned from this Weekend's Group C Friendlies

England has some issues when returning to defend . Ferdinand is slow , Walcott is fast but doesnt use his head . Rooney gets frustrated easy. Capello is too confident to be effective. Gerard is comming back to form and he actually changed Englands attitude when he came in.

USA - How did Specter ever become a pro ? there are better defenders in every league in every town . What does Clark know how to do? With Bradley alone in the midfield in the first half, what is he expected to do ? very strange how the first half was played. On a positve note Dempsey, Donovan,Bradley and Torres where good when they connected.

Algeria- they looked like crap vs Ireland

 

This summary from live commentary on Eurosport:
"The final whistle goes! England win 2-1. Now Capello must decide which 23 men he is taking to South Africa. He has to submit his squad on Tuesday."

Given today's performance I believe the defenders Nakazawa and Tanako should be guaranteed a spot in the English final 23 ahead of Ferdinand and Terry.

 

fyp

 

Lessons learned from this weekend's friendlies:

USA fans only talk about friendlies and take them seriously when they win.

 

From my experiance, frendlies dont say a lot

 

They start wheeling out their "alphabet team" excuses after a loss.

 

Well, in both friendlies, the managers were doing a lot of tinkering. First, deciding who is going to make the 23, and then who is going to start.

For England, Capello used both friendlies more to evaluate, as he wasn't going to name his squad between them. Point being, you can take less from the England friendlies, as Capello isn't as far along the process as Bradley.

For the US, the first friendly was mostly fringe players, but the second we found out some things (and some things in the first one also).

First: Bornstein and Spector cannot play extended minutes in the back. It has to be Cherundolo at RB, Bocanegra at LB, and some combination of Onyewu, DeMerit, and Goodson in the middle.

Second, Feilhaber can't play on the wing. Let's stick with LD and Dempsey. Or if Dempsey moves up top, Donovan and Holden or Beasley.

Last, Torres can play and maybe he should start.

Interestingly, both managers biggest question marks seem to be up top and in the CM.

Capello has to decide who to start up top with Rooney, and whether to use Rooney as a lone striker or pair him with another forward. Is Rooney in the hole behind Crouch/Heskey, or is Gerrard behind Rooney?

CM is the other issue. What to do with Gerrard and Lampard, especially if Barry isn't fit.

A minor issue is who to play on the flanks.

Bradley has the same issues. Whom to play next to Altidore (Dempsey or one of the other forwards)? And whom to play next to Bradley in MF. IF Dempsey moves up top, then who is the other wide midfielder?

For the USA, I'd say Torres in CM, keep Donovan and Dempsey wide, and we'll figure out the second striker (Buddle, Findley, or Gomez) at camp and vs. Australia.

For England, I think you'll see Rooney playing behind Crouch/Heskey, with Gerrard pinched on one side with J. Cole on the other (or possibly A. Johnson or Lennon). Lampard will partner Carrcik until Barry is healthy. Carrick should be good enough to get you through group.

 

I think the vast majority of us know we aren't that good. Doesn't mean we don't believe our team can do better.

 

And some English fans are still boorish snobs. And John Terry is still a jerk.

Really, do you honestly think the MORE meaningful game is the one in which Howard, Donovan, Dempsey, Bradley, and Bocanegra played, or the one where they didn't?

Hard to take you seriously as anything but a troll if you don't answer the right way.

England looked like crap for most of both games, but the lineup was largely experimental for both, so don't take much from it. And the second half against Mexico was good (much like our 2nd half against Turkey).

One thing that should become apparent, is that while England's overall talent level is higher, neither team is particularly deep.

 

Whereas England save their excuses for when they blow the big tournamant games.

 

At least our players play in big tournaments.

 

we learned that spector is not lionel messi and that he can't make epic runs into the box.

i read it in a pamphlet

 

What big tournaments are you talking about that the USA is eligible to participate in?

 

yeah but in terms of playing defense, they're not that far apart....

 

You know, like Euro 2008. Oh, wait.....

Or the 1994 World Cup, surely you remember that one. Wait, maybe not if your an England fan.

Face it, though the EPL has been one of the best leagues in the world since its inception, the English National team really doesn't merit elite-level mention.

They are consistently round of 16 or QF good, just on the edge of being better, but they aren't. In fact, England have been knocked out at the QF stage more times than any other team: 7. In fact, England rarely flame out (Germany like) but just don't get as deep as often as the other major powers (SF or better). Take France: 1 win, 1 other final, 3 other trips to the semis. But they also flame out a lot, having not gotten out of group 6 times.

In World Cup play, England have the historic 1966 victory on home soil....and one other trip past the QF, to the semi's in Italy in 1990. By way of comparison, Sweden have made it to 3 SF's and 1 final.

On the strength of their win and consistently GOOD showings (not great), England deserve a mention ahead of the other major soccer powers that have never lifted the big trophy (Sweden: 1 final, 3 SF; Netherlands, 2 finals, 1 SF; Hungary & Czechoslovakia: 2 finals each; Yugoslavia: 2 SF, and Spain: 1 SF). But they are deservedly behind the others.

And the Euros? England have never won the European Championships, nor have they ever been in the final. They have two SF appearances, once as hosts in 1996, and once in Italy 1968.

Many other Euro teams have a better Euro record than England. Spain have won it twice and made the SF 1 other time. The Dutch have won it, and been to the SF four times. The Czech's have won it, lost another final, and made 3 other trips to the semis. The Soviets won it once, lost 3 finals, and made one more SF. Heck, Denmark won it once and made 2 SF's.

Even teams like Greece (1 win), Portugal (1 final loss, 2 SF), Hungary (2 SF, though the tournament wasn't played when they had their strongest teams), and Belgium (1 final, 1 SF) have gone deeper more often than England at the Euros.

Really, despite their fairly consistent qualification and rarely getting knocked out early, I think England's performance has been a lot closer to the 2nd tier of powers (Netherlands, Spain, Czechoslovakia, Sweden) than it has been to the first tier (Brazil, Germany, Italy, Argentina, France, Uruguay) in term of goind deep into big tournaments and winning them.

In European Championships, it's laughable to say England has been one of the better clubs.
It's not even close.

 

yeah, but im pretty sure messi would have tracked back faster

 

Is it too much to ask that you refrain from stuff like this until "they" start showing up and actually pulling out "their" excuses? I would really appreciate it.

What was learned?

ENG:
Carrick can't do what Capello wants him to do, Barry needs to be fit to get the best team on the field.
Walcott isn't ready, Lennon should be on the right... SWP could be a good late sub. A lot of people are down on him in general and for some reasons I can't blame them, but I can see him coming on late and changing a game in England's favor.
Joe Hart looks like a solid #1.
Fabio is willing to experiment and adapt if things aren't working, and he is evidently pretty good at focusing his team during a half time talk.

USA:
LB is a nightmare, this we knew. Boca should play here.
Torres should see time alongside a DM, especially if we have the lead.
Onyewu doesn't look great, doesn't look terrible.
Spector's bad run of form is obviously continuing, backline is pretty much dictated by this fact.
Feilhaber isn't a winger, Dempsey and Donovan should play in midfield.
4-4-2 is the way to go.

 

1. What does this one-eyed Goal.com quality nonsense have to do with friendlies leading up to the 2010 world cup.

2. Feel free to share with us the glorious World Cup record of the USA.

 

Who are you trotting out for keeper for this WC? Is it David James...again? Robert Green? The guy who got completely abused in Norwich's short time in the premiership? The same Robert Green who was in net during West Ham's apalling fall down the table this year? Joe Hart? The untested keeper from Man City who has never had to deal with the bright lights of a major international competition? Your keeper situation is plain pitiful and will cost your squad points in the group cycle. Mark it down.

A quality keeper can win points on a day when your side has no business earning a draw or a win. England does not have a keeper who I'd feel comfortable with right now. Their weakness will be exploited during this World Cup.

 

Well seeing as this has descended into USA fans taking shots at England, not that it was ever more than that right from the OP:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6MDPJZSFDA"]YouTube- USMNT Fifa World Cup 2010: History Often Repeats Itself.[/ame]