I've been laying a little low since the Ghana loss... It was a bit emotional and I wanted to get my head around what I witnessed from our team and staff from the group stage through this 1st knockout round loss and reflect a bit on our overall cycle performance. The Good: 1. We brought arguably our best team ever to this cup in terms of individual talent, players on-form and mix of youth with experience. 2. In terms of sheer will-to-win and grit, this team showed a fight and spirit that was a pleasure to watch and be proud of. 3. # 2 made for some very watchable and exciting matches - great drama, storyline and results through the group stage 4. Halftime adjustments generally improved team focus and ability (something that couldn't necessarily be said earlier on in our qualification cycle.) 5. We have witnessed the maturation and break-out development of a few players in this cycle... namely Donovan maturing into the best run-of-field player ever for the program and fulfilling his long-lauded promise and new breakouts like M-Bradley... The Bad: 1. Early Defensive Gaffs Giving Away Goals: A common theme throughout this cycle that has never been properly managed or dealt with... And, in this WC, a major reason why we are out... Not just the actual goals themselves but the taxing nature of the overall effort need to recover from these gaffs. We went into the knockout round against Ghana on fumes... and it showed... Clark's immediate gaff was simply insult to injury and sadly somewhat fitting of the glaring problem with this team. We do not have enough class depth to do this time and time again and expect to advance. 2. Roster Selection: Clark starting is a real headscratcher given his recent poor form, Edu's recent excellent form and the fact that Edu played only a partial game 2 days prior... When Bob subbed Clark at 30 minutes, we all saw Bob hug Rico and appear to say something heartfelt to him... I am not sure what it was, but probably something along lines of "It's not your fault, it's mine..." Bob has gone in cycles on bad roster decisions... Past loyalties to poor-form Klejstan or Beasley last year obviously come to mind. This has been an issue on and off for a while and the fact that this bit us again in the Ghana game is also sadly somewhat fitting... I am not going to question the Findley over Buddle or Gomez call, as, quite frankly, we really don't have any strikers currently to pair with Jozy that are seasoned or ready enough to play at this level... and even Jozy obviously needs serious work on his finishing skills... Get well soon Chuck D... 3. Dependent On Luck, Mandon and Timmay: We were lucky to get out of the group stages and can thank Landon Donovan and Timmay for almost single-handedly picking up this team and putting it on their back to get us the one goal we needed when it all mattered (Jozy and Deuce's efforts in tow notwithstanding). Sorry, but winning the group really isn't much of an accomplishment. The U.S. lead for exactly two minutes in its three group stage games combined, the fewest of any team ever to advance. Again great heart, but we were simply lucky to advance. 4. A Doable Draw Squandered: We'll likely never see an easier a path to the semis again in our lifetime... --- When all is said and done, I am disappointed in this cycle... I wanted to believe we were a much improved team over 2006. In terms of excitement and match play however, this cycle has yielded some of the most intriguing games - Confed Cup, 2007 Gold Cup... WC group... certainly entertaining... I definitely think we played with a lot of heart... and that was great to see. I also think we have better and more improved players on the field than in 2006, but in the end, we collectively still lack the overall class, tactical and technical ability to do much in the WC, regardless of draw... I also like Bob Bradley... I think he as worked hard and tirelessly in this difficult job, and for that, I thank him. I originally thought he was a bad choice as many did 4 years ago, but for all his good and his bad, he has earned my respect and I think we easily could have done much worse. That said, 4 years is enough for any coach in this type of position, and I am ready for the next chapter. All and all, the real problem is my own... I wanted and tried to believe we were a better team than we truly are... That this would be the cup where improved player form, technical ability and tactics would shine through for this team and show a cumulative step forward in the caliber of the program... It was not to be.
I suspect he actually said, "I'm pulling you because of the yellow card, that's all," especially since that's what Bradley emphasized after the game.
Am I the only one who doesn't praise Donovan....I recognize he got the goal in the Algeria game but by no means was it a world class goal. Imo it was him who put us in that situation, he's our best player and wasn't taking on ALGERIA. I mean it's Algeria and he just wasn't going after them like I anticipated he would. And the goal. What can you see about the goal. It was pretty basic, Howard deserves most of the credit really. Algeria was stretched. I realize I'm being a debbie downer and get an infraction for not rating Donovan's world cup performance as high as others but I just don't think he was that good.
On the plus side I would add that we greatly upgraded our schedule from cycles past, and I would like to see more of the same. I'm sorry that we won't be playing Copa America, but we should make a strong push to play CONMEBOL teams as often as possible. On the negative side, we are admittedly not very deep (for a program with aspirations like ours), but I don't think BB did enough contigency planning. Giving one easy example, what if Howard had been more seriously injured and Hahnemann absolutely had to play (a game or two or three)? BB had set up (the mostly inactive) Guzan as the backup for virtually the entire cycle, and Hahnemann - who had a strong club season - had very little actual playing time with the MNT. Gooch's injury was always going to be devasting, as we had become Gooch-dependent, but we knew about his (probable/possible) absence last October. I don't think BB planned well - and possibly not at all - for a Gooch-less back line, and we were lucky that a back four with such obvious weaknesses - including coherence (i.e. playing time together in those particular positions) - held up as well as it did (v Algeria & Ghana). In fairness to BB, we did have an extensive list of pre-WC injuries that forced some of his choices. Nevertheless, he had choices, and he made some good ones and some bad ones. If he had simply grasped the obvious - e.g., Edu over Clark v Ghana - we might still be playing.
You can mainly thank Timmay and Donovan for the goal... Timmay for great distribution and Donovan for seeing the space and taking off before he even threw it... ...and also Altidore and Deuce, who had the wherewithall to quickly react to what was happening and force the defenders to scramble-mark them and give Donovan even more space to move forward unimpeded... It was a world class counterattack goal... and all 4 of those players contributed... it doesn't have to be a tidy, laser banana strike from distance to be a world class goal...
hmmm we need more from him really. He delivered some good balls but I was just extremely disapointed in his Algeria performance. He needs to step up in big games like that and he was just awful. I know I know he got the goal but I would have liked to see him play before the 91st minute.
I've been arguing with a few of my fellow geezer team mates. I felt like we lost to a better a team. They disagree. While I think this was a good American team and potentially one that could've beaten the likes of Ghana, it just seemed clear that on average, the Ghanaian players could trap and pass the ball better than the US players. How many times does a US defensive header go to a US player? Our opponents (at least the good ones) seem to be able to do it often. How many times does a US player's first touch create a positive result? Our opponents seem... blah blah blah. Has anyone seen Jozy chest trap a ball such that it doesn't bounce 10 feet away from his body? Personally, I think we did well this round--I thought we wouldn't make it out of our group. What would've happened had Davies and Gooch been full strength? Who knows... Why did Bob start Rico? Why did Torres get a little more PT? Who knows who knows who knows. It's tired I know, but until we're producing players who can control the ball in very tight situations consistently, can pass out of very tight situations, etc. we're going to struggle. It's just so much fun to cheer for your team, to angst about it, to talk about it. The biggest negative of losing is that now we have to wait 4 long years before we can do it again!
The REALLY bad - Lack of strikers who can finish. It is our Achilles' Heel and until we find a Tevez, Fabiano, Van Persie, Klose, Rooney we will never be able to truly compete at this level.
Agree, but I wouldn't put Rooney on this list. He came as close to the scoresheet as Findley in this WC.
Yep. The short version: Good: MF and outside DF Bad: Strikers and central DF and GK (aka everyone else)
He's still world class. However he does need a playmaker that can get him the ball. IMO, the problem with the English is Gerrard/Lampard in the middle. If they only had one they would be much better. Both are shoot first players which leaves the playmaking duties to the holding mid.
Good points by the OP and I largely agree. But I think Bob has to go. For three reasons, mainly. 1) Lack of tactical ability/flexibility. It wasn't just starting Clark ahead of Edu, or Findley ahead of whomever (and a striker you pull after 45 every time you are down 1-0 isn't really that good a striker, yes?). It is the fact that he is married to his 4-2-2-2 no matter who we play and no matter what our personnel situation is. Despite a glut of good midfielders and no proven striking options, he continues to go 4-4-2. Now, we got away with it somewhat in the first three matches because England/Slovenia payed similar systems and Algeria's 3-5-2 played more like 5-3-2. However, against a real 4-5-1 we were outnumbered in midfield and had to bypass midfield a lot and loop longball after longball up to strikers that aren't that prolific or technically gifted. Not saying you can't nick a game or two that way, but it is still a bad bet against a good team playing a 4-5-1. Witness the teams who usually or almost always set up 4-5-1: Brazil, Spain, Netherlands, Germany. Now, some teams go 4-3-3/4-5-1 like Argentina or Uruguay, but they are just loaded up front, and still aren't playing 4-4-2. It is just too tactically naive (witness England's exit) to surrender the midfield and think you are going to win against quality teams. 2) Tactical subbing. Bob prepares well. Motivates well. And his team plays for him, but again, come X's and O's time, he just isn't that great. And he isn't that brave. Why start a striker who has to come off every time we fall behind? Why start a CM that you don't trust to play extended minutes with a yellow? That wastes two subs for us in a 120 minute game. Then you make the third at the beginning of extra time, deprive us of our only CF, and fail to realize that being outnumbered in MF AND having no target forward will mean you have no offense. Plus, it left you with no recourse to adopt a more aggressive posture once we fell behind again. Poor. He is just too stubborn in some ways. I'm not saying he's a moron, or a bad coach, just that he tends to value some traits too highly (athleticism, speed, size) and others too little (vision, technical ability). He sticks to a formation even though it obviously is going to put us at as disadvantage, and I feel because of the first two, we don't get the most out of some of our more technically gifted players (Dempsey, Dononvan, Torres, Holden, Feilhaber). 3) Name the two coaches from this cycle who were in charge last cycle. Domenech (France) and Lippi (Italy). Enough said. And look what happened to Arena in 2006. Guys who have been there once, and had a bit of success (why else retain them) tend to be overly loyal to the guys they know and trust, even when they aren't the best choices. Lippi took too many from Juve, Rossi doesn't make it, and some of the younger guys on the squad weren't used until too late. Domenech was disaster in many areas, but no Cisse on the pitch till the 3rd game, and Nasri should obviously have gone. And it isn't just the WC itself, based on the level of trust from last cycle, the coach just favors some players, and enough players don't get serious looks to start, and there is a lack of competition and sense of complacency sets in. It happened to Arena in 2006. We've already seen it a bit with Bob this time (no Spector looks at LB, no looks at CM w/out Bradley, Bornstein, why does Jozy start every time, etc). I congratulate Bob Bradley for his hard work, his good results (Gold Cup, Confederations Cup, this World Cup), but I just don't think he has the tactical acuity or intestinal fortitude (guts) to take us where we need to go. Heck, Mexico comes out to play against Argentina, we play conservative against Ghana. Enough said.
another thread where you bash Donovan...we get it, you don't like him and thinks he should have confidence to match yours. It was basically just like the goal against Brazil in the CC, both were counterattacks run to perfection and engineered by the same person.
Lots of good things have been said. But I'd also like to remember that our record in regulation was 1 win, 0 losses, and 3 draws. Count our goals and it's 2 wins, 0 losses, and 2 draws. I felt like we outplayed Ghana for most of the game and went out too early, but the fact that we went an entire world cup without losing a game in regulation, although not as exciting as we'd like, is something entirely new.
If we really want to be true contenders for the Cup (as opposed to getting lucky with the draw, or simply playing "inspired" as underdogs to get to the final 8), we have got to improve our technical competence. I repeat, if we don't improve our technical competence, there's no point in proceeding with the discussion about winning the Cup. I've been watching the WC diligently now since 1986, and so for the last 24 years, I think there are really only 4 countries that consistently produces a team with a legitimate shot at winning- Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Germany. All different styles of course, but the common denominator is all-around technical competence. Clean first touch and ability to play the ball one touch while moving at pace- all these teams have that. The second tier of countries who contend from time to time- France, Netherlands, Spain, they also have this when they're on. It's obviously a multi-decade project to get to become a top 5 country in the world's game. But we're Americans, and we play for keeps.
Not at all. The counterattack against Brazil was a thing of pure beauty. That was truly world class. But the goal against Algeria, meh. I wouldn't call that world class at all, not even close. The big difference of course is the goal against Brazil meant zilch since it was done in an exhibition tournament. You need to show up in the big games and the U.S. only plays in one big tournament, the world cup.
France has won 1 World Cup and been in another World Cup final that went to PKs. That's more than Argentina has sniffed in 20+ years.
Yes- France won in '98, and they got to the final match in '06- but they failed to get out of the group rounds in '02 and '10. I don't think they even got to the dance in '90/'94- the point is to produce consistent contenders. Sans Zidane, this team's record is far worse than the Americans.
Uhhh....hard to exclude his performance?! And you cannot even put the US in the same discussion as France it terms of historical World Cup success. Sorry.
Considering that France has made the semis in half of the World Cups in the last 30 years, yeah, they are way ahead of the United States.