US - ivory coast post game discussion [R]

Actually I'm the only idiot to offer up Santino for Adu. But I took ti back later on if you just look up a few posts

 

well, apparently you are the only one who thought we had the run of play in the first half ........ including the announcers. and they had many more than 2 or 3 prime chances. Cronin made 3 or 4 great stops, and then there were several others right in front of goal that the booted just wide. i love the US squad as much as the next, but it doesn't help to be a homer for the team.

 

Sorry. I thought I should do something productive since I took the day off of work to watch a youth soccer game. I will head back to my regular stopping grounds.

 

If your going to quote me, at least quote stuff that I actually said. I never said anything about Johnson's PK. I also said "I think it might be" about benchinf Freddy. ITs not like he's done anything to solidify a starting spot out there.

 

Sorry Nutmeg, but I think you are just wrong here. Grabavoy was very good, but he didnt sit on the ball long, and moved it pretty quick so it was easy to miss. I thought he was applying good defensive pressure and linking up with the attack for much of the game. In my opinion he played a very good game.

 

Actually, two goal leads are generally very safe.

http://deepbrook.com/writing/soccer365/2002_06_two_goal_leads.htm

The idea that "the 2-0 lead is the most dangerous in soccer" is a complete myth.

 

Sig.

 

No Problem.


I agree with you that some people go overboard. Like all the people who think we're idiots for playing no-risk soccer in the 2nd half with a 2 - 0 lead, and playing against a team thats a man down and probably used the majority of their energy in a frenetic 25 minute period during the 1st half.

I also disagree with the people who say that Eddie Johnson sucks because he missed to goals while sprinting down the field. Before I said I thoght he should have finished those chances, but its not like they were sitters. He was at a tough angle both times, and he was approx 5" from a brace.

 

Re: random thoughts

I think CIV beat MEX and BFA beat PAN in the first round. So, it's actually CONCACAF 2 CAF 2.

Murf

 

People here need to chill. When a team plays an aggressive offside trap like Ivory Coast did, playing over them is very wise. We had 14 offsides in that game, but on the plays they didnt catch us we absolutely KILLED them, getting 2 goals and a red on the keeper out of them. Yes IC had a lot of shots, but they were for the most part saveable shots. Cronin kept us in it, but the defense did enough that he had could make plays on the ball. If you looked at Ivory Coasts stats going into the game, youll notice they were among the tournament leaders in shots and shots on goal, but only had 2 run of play goals. They shoot. They shoot a lot. But that doesnt nescessarily mean they will beat the keeper. And we have very good keepers, its damn hard to beat them.

And the defenders are actually technicly pretty good, the problem is that they are not used to a pro level of play like the offensive players. I do not think thats a big problem though unless your goal is to win at this level above all else, as I figure all those guys will adjust to the pro level at some point. But I thought they did a much better job on the ball then their U-17 counterparts, with the exception of Moor who gifted IC with their two best chances.

 

I was one who was pretty critical of our defenders from this macth, and I think you have a very good point that these guys are just college kids who are still very much developing. But like also said, they improved much in the 2nd half.

I also don't understand the people who are complaining of the boomball tactics. I activly looked for that and we never played any boomball. I actully thought it was refreshing and hoping to see some credit go to our defenders and Rongen for that, but apparently I'm the only who saw it. OR maybe I'm just wrong and we did play boomball.

 

I've been impressed with Johnson, Marshall, Convey and Cronin. Those 4 are definitley the backbone of this team. I was expecting much more from Ricardo Clark and Quaranta. Clark has given the ball away too many times and been beaten just as much. Quaranta just doesn't seem threatening at all..his best pass is backwards.

 

This statement, unfortunately, may turn out to be prophetic. In the U-17 tourney earlier this year, we were out played by SIerra Leone (in my opinion) and dodged a few bullets, until Adu won it for us at the death. Sierra Leone missed many chances. When we played Spain, and then Brazil, we were not only outplayed but severely outscored. Today's game was similar to the U-17 Sierra Leona game. We have Argentina next. THey may prove to be better finishers than any team we've played so far. However, let's play the game and see what happens.

 

Playmakers guys...playmakers..

Its the rage in the NFL (Parcells, J. Johnson, etc.) because at the end of day, you need a guy who can create some extraordinary out a situation or finish..

In soccer, "playmakers" are rare, necessarily...and I'd say worth their weight in gold...because soccer Uber-rewards goalscoring (especially in big tourneys) relative to other aspects of the game....you can lose the ball 5 times in midfield (screw up), but you cause/create one goal...that is EXTREMELY VALUABLE in a (likely) low-scoring knockout tourney..

All that skill, but IC could not put one on the board...that (scoring is all that matters)..

That's why you can't underestimate young Adu's abilities here...sure, he should not be kept on the field so much that he destroys team chemistry, or gives up an easy goal by not marking. (but that is not the case, is it?) ..but if he is (as he has) creating one goal a game (that another player likely wouldn't have done) from a midfield/withdrawn forward position....and maybe setting up a possible 2nd....well, I don't know how much more one can expect from any 14 year old at this level...someone who hasn't prepared w/team, etc. Last I checked, US only scored 4-5 goals lately, sounds like Freddy had something to do with 3 of them AND a goalie being sent off......uh....dat's playmaking stuff...

US is winning...keep the team as is....

 

We didnt. We did play a lot of balls over the top, but it was our midfielders doing that as much as everybody else. And I maintain that wass smart, as trying to play on the ground in front of a defense playing a high offside trap like that is making it easy on them. Playing over the top like we did is bound to get them burned, because you try 20 offensive traps in a game you going to miss a number of them.

 

Freddy must play. He clearly makes a difference, on so many levels. He is a constant threat, even when doing "nothing," as the other team always have to worry about him.

After a very quiet start, when we were moving the ball mostly from the other side, Adu started to get more touches. Often, he was busy helping the team possess, and his touch and passing helped out in a lot of situations. On the rare occasions when he did have something going upfront, he made the most of it. For me, that's all he has to do. He earned a PK and almost made a goal for EJ with a brilliant through ball. Was he supposed to do more? I thought that was plenty, given the game. And he showed more grit in on the other end, even if that's his weakness.

I think he would have made his mark on the game even clearer, had he stayed in, but I agree it was best to take him out at that point.

But to call him to the bench for Argentina is crazy, in my mind. His mere presence has upped our game.

 

Re: Re: Bad performance

I actually and truly loughed out loud while reading this. Good thing I already finished my Coke, or my computer keyboard would be toast. I think you need to put an "[L]" in your posts so people can be prepared b/f they read them.

 

Our defense is very good at winning aerial battles. In fact I don't remember our defenders got beat in the air once.

The biggest difference between our U20 defenders and defenders in senior squad is clearly mentality of anticipating vs reacting. In this entire match, our U20 defender react to things that has ALREADY happened. In a few occasions, they reacted slowly. They left opposing players wide open against GK 1v1. That's why they look so bad. I think they work well as a team, they just need to learn to read the game better.

 

Fisrst half Cronin was big, getting the ball off the line was huge by Moor (?) to avoid falling behind ... Convey showed some magic..IC pressed hard to equalize and could have caused lots of trouble

Rongen i think did a good job

My main contention for the 2nd half would be that if you want to play no-risk soccer vs. a team down a man (2 in the last 20min.), there was the less risky choice of pressing up top and getting the ball back, instead of what was done: retreat and let them come at you...There were at least 2 miscues which almost allowed IC to get back into the game....How is that possible? If our D is our weakest point, then why knock the ball around so much precisely with those players we keep saying are not as good as our professionals? (midfield and offense)..
We certainly deserved the win, no doubt

And about Adu, i think we might be expecting too much out of him as a starter in the U-20's...As long as he plays as well as he has, which is better than Q, it should be a good 60-75 min he provides....

 

I guess you missed the first part where I said I thought EJ had a pretty good game. High maintenance? Check the mirror.

Overall I thought the US had a decent game, but I think Cronin was unbelievable. Every post in this thread should be in admiration of the job this kid did today. That's what people should be talking about. And yet you're nitpicking posts to drive yourself crazy.

Enjoy the drive, but I'm getting off the bus here.

 

The thing is, does he create more opportunities in 70 minutes as a starter over 20 minutes as a sub? And even if he does, is it so many more than he will surrender because he simply isnt able to pressure defensively? He tried to play defense in this game, but he really did nothing effective. I thought ICs play improved signifigantly when they started trying to build more of their attack on his side of the field, as their was much more space and much less pressure on their players. There also was one case where he clearly could have tackled a player, but he didnt, and it led to probably ICs best opportunity of the game.

And then you have to consider the relative play of his sub. How would that guy do, what things would unfold differently were other things to happen on the field.

I think its a complicated issue. Im not sure there is a better alternative to Adu, but I dont think he has been all that good in the two games hes started.

 

Don't be sorry. I could be totally wrong here, but I was really disappointed with the lack of a defensive midfield presence in the first half when CIV was lighting up the US defense, and Grabavoy was a part of that void. I also saw a few of his passes that went forward to nobody, so overall I thought he stunk in this game. But to be fair, I am not at all down on the kid. I thought he played well against Korea, said so in the postgame thread, and I think he has a decent future ahead of him.

 

Didn't see the game, but what your advocating would be a good way to protect a lead.

Of course, retreating and letting them come at you is the right way to get a 3rd goal on the counter

And can all the 'what if' people remember that there is no such thing as a 2 point goal? Subs and strategies at 2-0 are different than 2-1...and Rongen saved his subs for the last 10 minutes.

As for the "most dangerous lead," I'll take 2-0 over 1-0 any day of the week.

I forgot by reading this thread - what did we lose by?