You mean the guy Bradley subbed in to help kill of the game...and rewarded him by failing to bury an open header. (Yes, great save---but you need to drive that ball low) Getting back to reality, does anyone seriously doubt that Bradley wasn't involved in this? That Torres would have switched countries without talks involving Bradley on some level? (Bradley who has probably given out more first caps than any previous US coach, by the way.) That doesn't mean he's going to suit up for the next set of games as an automatic starter. But he's going to play.
how many "great" (by which you mean "lifetime") saves did the SAL keeper have to make on headers by M. Bradley? who played a hell of a lot longer.
I believe you're nearer to overreacting to my post than I am about the game. It also appears to me that you ignore much of the poor play. I do not believe it was a simple "1-goal win," I believe it was a bad performance that could have easily been 1 point. (Edit: not to say the team didn't play well at times, but consistency is part of playing well.) I've already gone more in-depth in a previous post in this thread, so I'm done with this post.
It wouldn't have made me happy but I could have lived with it because we needed points. Getting zero points I would have been furious. Don't think I'm writing off a poor effort just because we got points. I'm simply saying we played better than the Sallies and deservedly won. That's all.
Things could have been much worse with the referee's. We had what 5 or 6 guys with yellows? The 2nd Altidore goal does make you go "hmm". Clint's tackle was picture perfect. Jozy was onside by nearly two feet. Grog
Fair enough. And what I'm saying is that there's momentum and -- for lack of a better term -- "vibe" involved. And to do well in a World Cup, both need to be engaged long before June of 2010.
He came in the 84th minute,,,what reward is that? With limited time he pressured the ball well and was very energetic. Can't evaluate much based on 6 minutes.
Torres could have scored. It was a beautiful cross and run but it's extremely difficult running that fast from that distance to get up and over the ball to head downward. It's almost always going to be a line drive, powerful header especially with the velocity of the cross. More difficult that it looks to finish that. I say a large percentage of players head that well over the bar or miss wide right.
I'll counter that with this: who else gets themselves into position to score that often? I've suffered through this team for years not having that guy, the one who always seems to turn up in a good scoring position when the ball is nearby. Mathis could do it. Wolff did it but never seemed to finish. Now Davies is showing that he can as well. Having that guy on your team is huge, regardless of whatever else he may or may not do on the field. He's a bona fide threat that opposing teams have to deal with. He makes some mistakes, and sometimes he misses sitters. Who doesn't? But other times he hits those sitters, which is the point of the game, after all.
Well that was a very disjointed and overall fairly poor performance, certainly the worst-played game in which we've won this cycle. It was a classic case of playing down to the level of the opponent (which does one thing quite well, which is finish its chances, but is a fairly poor team honestly). One positive is that we managed to get out of there without any cards, which will allow us to bring a full squad down to T&T in search of all 3 points. I generally don't like to complain much about officiating, but this was the worst-officiated match that we've had in qualifiers this cycle. They were bad enough that I can't help but remark on them.
Look, we won, and I'll gladly take it after going down 1-0. Bornstein made his one dumb play, and it cost us. Howard was horribly out of position on the goal, poor play there. Dempsey was wasteful a couple of times, but he did score when we needed it most. Beckerman proved he didn't deserve to be there, but we managed to survive. Still, Davies looked lively all night, as did LD. Benny played a good game. Marshall was also decent.
Are you kidding me, you better watch the game again. Bornstein gave the ball away almost every time he touched it, he was absolutely terrible. An outside back needs to be composed on the ball and complete a high percentage of passes to the midfielders, he did neither. He started more attacks for the Sallys than I could count.
I'd prefer getting used to a well-coached, well-organized and unified team winning matches without trying so hard to deceive. Mediocrity can be a seductive mistress.
How many dangerous shots did Tim have to deal with? They dealt with the threat, even if they didn't look all that coordinated at times. I'll fault them on their clearances, they were poor. Like I said, overall passable but not great.
Don't be a prick, El Salvador is a shit team and they were very close to getting their first result on the road in this table. The goals weren't that impressive because El Salvador's marking was non-existant on both, this is a game a team like the US should score 4 easily and not be risking a draw. If they were better organized they would have tied the game easily, way too many exposed net instances and weak ass 'clearances' that would have just required a tap in Expectations need to rise and the US needs to stop relying on these 'what if' scenarios, the team was very lucky to even get a chance to face Spain in the Confed Cup and after that tournament expectations should be raised after what happened in South Africa. ******** 'this is how it always is', then you'll be content with 3 and out in the group stage next year?
Can't really argue. We have different POVs. Neither one is more right than the other. As I eluded to earlier, it's down to survival of the fittest. Teams around the world are going to bite, scratch, and claw their way to the World Cup. Some of the best teams in the world, too like Argentina. We are no different. Things slowly but surely are starting to take shape like the Jozy-Davies pairing, Feilhaber's reemergence, Donovan's outstanding form, etc. All these games are preparing us for the WC, no doubt, but it's teaching us more how to survive in a pressure cooked situation. I think the kinks will get ironed out when we qualify and we set up a good series of friendlies and tough opponents. I hope I'm right. I hope I'm not being mislead but my head and not my heart.
The team looked fairly poor against a CONCACAF bottom feeder at home. Not particularly encouraging, but at least we did get the points. Right now, that is the most important thing. That said, I want to discuss the referees for a second. The CONCACAF referees are killing me. If the referees consistently made calls on behalf of the home team, I wouldn't be happy, but at least I could feel like they were consistent and that nobody got favored in the long run. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The referees are blantantly pro-Mexico when we go down there, and then when we play at home (in Utah of all places) the referees make a horrible and blatant mistake that almost costs us two points. When are we going to stop getting the short end of the fricking stick from these referees?!?!?! Someone needs to file a formal (and public) protest on behalf of the US Soccer Federation because this is getting absolutely ridiculous.
Clearly that was important...and beside my point. The comment was "will he have sense to play him". My response was that if you don't think he was involved in talks with Bradley before hand, I think you are mistaken. Meaning what, preceisely? Was I talking about Bradley I like Torres..and clearly Bradley does too or he would not have been on the squad or he would not have come in when he needed possession to kill off the game. How he fits into this team and his role are legitimate questions. And none of that applies to Castillo who happens to play our weakest position. Demspey was over all positive. But he has limits. I don't think he can be called a great finisher, for example. And he does disappear sometimes. But all in all, I like him.
On the Dempsey hating: You can't score if you don't shoot. Some of you seem to criticize these things incessantly, but good players shoot the ball, they do not score every single time they shoot. The key is that they continue to create the chances. I'll gladly take 5 Dempsey misses, if the 6th is a goal. Dempsey was excellent tonight. Man of the Match.
Sorry. I thought he might be hyperventilating and wanted to calm him down. You go on to say and your very next sentence is... Seriously...
It's pretty well impossible to leave no open spaces. The US gave El Salvador time on the ball because they had no fear of their ability to shoot from distance or cross into traffic. The clear problem tonight were the giveaways in bad spots. Nearly all of El Salvador's chances came from these mistakes, most notably the goal. Bradley, Feilhaber, Bornstein, Spector and Dempsey were all guilty of this tonight repeatedly. The US looked their best when the played the ball early and confidently to the feet the strikers, or into their path pulling wide. A fast, direct game suits their skillset well. Knocking it around carelessly against a crowded midfield in order to play a short-passing possession game does not Perhaps the US felt the need to display their dominance by trying to keep possession more? Maybe to garner some 'ole' chants? The US can be terrific when they play fast and direct. I hope they come out like that down in Trinidad.