US versus Costa Rica 2-1-20: Post Game Thread(R)

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by Lloyd Heilbrunn, Feb 2, 2020.

  1. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    Not really. . Look I'm not promoting my blog. I get no money from it. I can just show gifs rather than just talk about it.

    http://positionalplayscholar.com/index.php/2020/02/03/usmnt-vs-costa-rica-the-future-is-on-the-way/


    Scroll down and just watch the gifs.. particularly the later ones... watch how the used the principles to move the d.
     
  2. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010

    Yes because they were. That does not mean that you don't evaluate and try to find a way to better next time. I think you're mixing up pre game prep with post game analysis.
     
  3. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    I don't wan to split hairs about each gif, but the last one for me pointed out exactly what I was saying. Lots of passing on the perimeter, ending with a lofted diagonal that the defense stayed in front of and the ball gets knocked out. There was no penetration, no actually getting behind the defense. There is a reason you see every announcer everywhere when a team is stroking the ball around in the back and getting nowhere say they need to move the ball faster. Speed of play is a real thing and we weren't particularly good at pushing the tempo.
     
    Lloyd Heilbrunn and Patrick167 repped this.
  4. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    no, i want a team that before, during, and after believes it can do it, plays hard, executes. i also believe in scouting and prep before, then post mortem after. i grant that a post mortem after needs to be honest to self and objective. but that's only because you know by that point what happened.

    the problem, to me, with blowing it off is that players who don't think they can win can show up flat, can break mentally during a game, can not play as hard as they should. to me effort is tied to belief.

    conversely, i want the coach gunning for a win when it matters. I don't want this GB gibberish where he has a theory on how to win and who to do it with but slowly if ever corrects that to reality. i think an attitude where a team accepts losses as ok tends to promote status quo reflectiveness. you tell yourself you did as good as you could with who you should have used, and you try the same stupid thing next time.

    i want my coach thinking, what can i change to change the result next time. and to do that he has to believe it's possible and hold his system and players to account like so.

    to me GB is playing this second rate set of people because he doesn't even think he could do better. thing being the team under sarachan beat mexico. we obviously can do better. so what did you do wrong.***

    ***related point, normally a losing coach questions himself and gains humility. an arrogant coach who thinks he's a magician even with bad results will lack humility and think he's perfect. he will not make changes or make them glacially because how could i be wrong.

    it's a nexus between believing a result is possible, but putting in the effort and changes to try and make it happen next time. it requires a mix of humility to learning but yet confidence we can do it. the current occupant has too much unearned confidence.
     
  5. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    I think there is a difference in evaluating and planning. Every game teams go in with a percentage chance to win. Maybe its 90 to 10; maybe its 50 to 50. Maybe its 60 to 40.

    • First thing I want is for the US to improve their odds against all opponents to be as much over 50 as they can.
    • Second, at least make it 50/50
    • Win a few when they are below 50/50.

    Against Mexico - the game plan and tactics, and stats said they made it a 50/50 game. Minimally- that's fine for me.

    I don't get upset if they lose a 50/50 toss. I don't get upset if they lose when they are below 50.

    I even give leeway that its an odds thing and that some times- teams will punch up; get lucky and get a win when we are odds favorites.

    I get upset when its not 50/50 when it should be and we lose more 60/40 match ups (when we are favorites) than the odds should dictate.

    Its what makes international evaluations so hard. There are too few games and too much emphasis on game to game results rather than a bigger picture evaluation of the results.

    Every team in the world loses a few to teams punching up. They need win most of the ones when they are favored- split the 50/50 and get one or to when they are dogs.

    Fans often want a higher standard. They want no losses on either the 60/40 favorites OR the 50/50. And they want to win way more than a few of the 40/60 odds.

    To me - that's unreasonable and illogical. I just want them to meet those odds and slowing improve so that most games are 60/40 match ups.
     
  6. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    #106 juvechelsea, Feb 4, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2020
    put differently, i think we are a confused muddle. we talk system like this is a project that will lead to winning, but then we don't pivot towards the kids who have upside and will be around on a project timescale. we instead as often lately field a fairly conservative set of players, like we are trying to win now, except they haven't won that much when handed the responsibility before, and trying to win now would objectively lend itself to cynical "today" tactics as opposed to aspirational "tomorrow" ones.

    why are we fielding a "today" selection to work on a "tomorrow" project with "tomorrow" tactics. pick one. is this about winning today. or is the goal implementing system and building to 2026.

    it's kind of like, as i have said before and a few echoed this time, hmmmm we looked a little better with better technical players trying to play a passing game. before we have been using hustle guys to play possession soccer and then acting as though befuddled why we can't string a pass. maybe select dribblers and passers to play possession soccer. like klinsi did. he played thugs when we were going negative. he played passers when he wanted to knock it around.

    this is not rocket surgery.

    we don't have our thoughts and actions fully aligned, but then we have a second rate captain at the helm.
     
  7. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    I think this was the gif where they did best to move the ball around, the passes on the right were a bit quicker and the diagonal was hit first time with a bit more pace to create a 2 on 1 situation where we should have created a good opportunity:

    https://i1.wp.com/positionalplaysch.../2020/02/ezgif.com-video-to-gif-2-1.gif?w=900

    But then, Llanez dawdled too long on the ball, slowing the play and Costa Rica recovered and we never got through, they had plenty of cover for a weak cross. If you want to create chances by moving the ball, you have to move the ball quickly. That's just basics. And if we had moved the ball quickly, I'd have to say we would have hod more than 2 open looks on goal.
     
  8. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    we look most dangerous when

    the wingback simply skips the midfield and plays it down the line to a wing forward, who either takes it himself or is overlapped by the same wingback

    or we get it central our side of the halfline then hit a diagonal early

    or dead balls

    all of which are 433 ways to play but aren't possession soccer.

    when we try to work the ball from the goalie to the center backs and up the middle, we tend to suck. i overstate, perhaps one play per game we outfox the press and string passes upfield, and it is kind of pretty to watch. but it works about once a game. it may in attempting to do so create 2 chances back the other way where the keeper makes a bad distribution, and against good teams we were handing the ball away like throwing confetti.
     
    nobody repped this.
  9. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    In the beginning it looked good. Passes were finding Jesus in between the CR defense and midfield that was unbalancing CR. CR adjusted and the attacks had to go down the wings. The problem there is Llanez is not quite mature in his decision making, LLetget played too conservative, Arriola couldn't finish or have a consistent touch, and Vines couldn't do anything productive.

    As Nobody said, the ball was moving too slow as the first half drew out. The USA came out and moved the ball quickly and got the PK. Then everything slowed down and a dozen subs were made.

    The set piece defending was terrible. The set piece delivery by the USA was even worse.

    The press was good to see and executed well. The defense was generally solid and would have been more so if Yueill played more ruthless.
     
  10. Lloyd Heilbrunn

    Lloyd Heilbrunn Member+

    Feb 11, 2002
    Jupiter, Fl.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    We have 3 speeds:

    Glacial-the way we were playing most of last year.

    Slow-the way we were playing in this game.

    Adequate-the way we played in the 2nd Canada game.

    Is adequate every game, too much to ask?
     
    Patrick167 and rgli13 repped this.
  11. gogorath

    gogorath Member+

    None
    United States
    May 12, 2019
    Are we talking about in this last game or in theory? I think it's important here because I think whe we talk the latter, things get too stratified, as if a team can play a whole game without being in possession or can simpy counterattack at will.

    What I saw in this last game was pretty simple to me:
    • I thought the decisions made to counter-attack/move quickly forward v. when the ball was cycled for possession/held up largely were made in the context of whether or not the opposing defense was set and had numbers
    • I don't remember a time where we attacked when the defense was set and had numbers, recklessly, and I don't remember a time when we pulled it back when we had an advantage or equal numbers going forward except for once when Llanez did (and that was borderline).
    • In short, while we aren't forcing 2 on 4s or anything, Costa Rica was getting back most of the time because they weren't getting forward AT ALL.
    • We didn't play really any Route 1 style direct play -- that is, throw it forward to someone who isn't open and let them battle for it. We would make some long passes from the CBs to the wingers, but nothing immediate. That's definitely missing from the quick.
    • When Costa Rica did extend their highest line of confrontation and stretched out, we got past it quickly, turned and pushed. It created a bunch of opportunities and some chances. But it wasn't like we were lost with where to go like in some other games -- it got to Aaronson or Lletget or Cannon on the wing and kept moving forward.
    • I used opportunities on purpose, because you are right -- we didn't create a ton of real chances. Chances has a technical definition that I avoided. That said, I think a lot of the opportunities didn't manifest because of some decision-making and execution.
    • For examples, Vines and Llanez hit a lot of bad crosses off good opportunities. I'm not sure we can count on better, but we didn't get our money's worth.
    • We also had a decent number of communication mix-ups/bad choices/etc. We have four or five chances in the box where people just couldn't get the shot off, etc. I know the competition wasn't great, but I do expect Pulisic to outperform Llanez, for example.
    It's not all rosy to me, and I'm sure we could press the pace even more, but I actually think we generally moved quickly at the right times and held back at the right times. It's hard to break down a bunker no matter what -- that's the point.

    Ferreira at the 9 is an interesting conundrum for Berhalter. His ability to effectively play as a midfielder is one of the reasons that Costa Rica gave up trying to press/extend their defense and sat back. That made their offense less effective.

    But Ferreira really isn't the striker you want when trying to break a bunker. He's small, and he didn't show any of the nose for the opportunistic run or goal scoring in the game. In fact, most of the time he got the ball in the box, he made a pass. It was usually a really nice pass that someone then flubbed the shot.

    But in terms of having to cross balls in -- and beating a bunker is either about pure volume or suckering them out -- he's not exactly the type of striker you want.
     
  12. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    The post you quote above was in response to a different post and more general. For the specific Costa Rica game, like I said before, I basically thought you summed it up pretty well, with the one caveat that I felt we didn't really create much outside a bunch of perimeter passing. And I feel like if we want to create from passing the ball around, we need to either get up-field before the defense is set or when we do meander up field, we need to move the ball more quickly or we're going to be stuck with few real chances pretty regularly. We do struggle with the final ball, but some final balls are much easier than others. The opportunities to play a final ball were often not great. Playing at a higher tempo and getting the other side moving erratically trying to keep up increases the odds that when you get the ball in a position to make that final pass, you actually have some openings to pass into.
     
  13. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    #113 juvechelsea, Feb 4, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2020
    GB strikes me sufficiently dense where one wonders when he does a smart thing whether he was really doing a lesser, dumb thing instead. for example, sargent gets to start against jamaica but basically as a no-hope event with lousy supporting cast. he then gets cut and disappears for the summer.

    along those lines

    https://sbisoccer.com/2020/02/projecting-the-usmnt-olympic-qualifying-squad

    i read this and it reminds me that some were talking about choices as olympic players. to the extent you liked a january camp player, well, was he really preparing for the olympics instead. and will be like the senior team 3rd or 4th string choice come march or the summer. eg cannon llanez ferreira. you think you are watching a breath of fresh air. it is instead a sub rosa U23 oriented pick.

    conversely, this would calm me down on aaronson. has no business with the senior team, but as MLS would be available for U23 duty. i have encouraged the program to make a decision of whether U23 is for development only -- call the best, and blow off whether we qualify -- or whether the focus is winning and qualifying. if you wanted to qualify you should focus on players who will be made available. back in the day when this was a glorified college all star team this was not a concern. and they could train for weeks and show up gelled. now we are more of an "international date" team and you only get so many looks. if the goal is winning the looks should focus on players who will be released so the team is as familiar as they will get from a professional place. one way of getting them in camp around release questions is call U23s to senior camp where at times when they will get released.

    personally i am ambivalent on this. i think in a professionalized environment like we are now at, a split develops. my best U23s may be my least accessible. my most accessible U23s may be less useful as development players for the senior team. if the real goal is senior team impact, why am i putting more energy into players with less of a chance? because "MLS" or "available?" isn't that mirroring the perversity of calling people based on playing time, and thus bypassing the most ambitious and decorated prospects for the ones who start a career faster?

    there is a set of people who seem to think olympic qualifying is hugely important to change, but we aren't any time soon going back to college camps for a month before qualifying, but i think it's a fair question of whether U23 would be better used as a showcase for the best young players, and then we send the release team instead and what happens, happens. i'm struggling to see the value of the aaronson showcase. i want to see reyna and weah and the cutting edge quasi-b-team that are the consensus next generation.

    it feels like you would be progressively sending worse and worse players to U23 qualifying because of the release issue, and yet if they get senior team looks as stealth U23s, then you're messing up your own queue. why am i putting a ton of energy into 3rd rate players when i'd be wiser to put it into 2nd tier guys with more talent. "because olympics?" part of the issue we will face from here on out is the distortion of access. that you start having the team of the future pitted against the team you can access. for those reasons, germany doesn't care. why do we?
     
  14. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    to put more meat on those bones, you can see a scenario where he calls his ugly veteran senior team for march, he calls his accessible U23s then as well, and ironically the uncalled players in the middle are the weah richards reyna soto mendez prize prospects. you instead get all the glad and aaronson you want.

    surely you can see how this leaves out the most juicy bites on purpose, and puts more effort into the set of players who nominally should be behind them. why? because they are emerging first team players in europe. if they don't make the senior team they don't get called until god knows when. but if they are U23 released you see as much of them as you can stand. that is the focus on the training effort.

    this is perverse and absurd.

    this is how you prepare to try and qualify for the olympics. this is not how you work on integrating your leading prospects.
     
  15. Calling BS

    Calling BS Member+

    Orlando City
    United States
    Jan 25, 2020
    I think GB wants to suck a bunkered defense to one side and hit a big to the opposite wing. I think that’s what he said to a reporter at halftime.
     
  16. TrueCrew

    TrueCrew Member+

    Dec 22, 2003
    Columbus, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A couple thoughts.

    1) We are not that good right now.

    Dependable vets have aged out or retired (LD, Howard, Dempsey, Dolo, DMB, Boca) or are entering past it or injury prone territory (Mikey, Altidore).

    2) The generation after them has almost been a total whiff. And the guys who are not (Yedlin, Brooks) have been injury prone.

    3) The top tier of youngsters have also been hurt a bunch recently (Pulisic, Adams, McKennie, even Steffen). Next level guys have also been injured (Weah).

    4) What's left in the CONCACAF Hex level vets/MLS ers (Zardes, Guzan, Morris, Ream, Gonzo, Arriola, Long, Zimmerman, Wood, Roldan, Trapp, etc), the younger guys who are just starting to emerge (Dest, Cannon, Yueill) and other guys who are U23 types (Robinson, Gio, Llanez, Sargent, etc).
    -----

    The old guys & CONCACAF level guys can be decent roster filler, but mostly serve as bridges until the younger guys are ready to step up, and the guys we know can play get healthy.

    Point being, the battle station is not fully operational..

    I mean, is this so bad?

    -------------------Steffen--------------
    Cannon/Yedlin---Long----Brooks----Dest
    ---------Adams---McKennie------
    ------------------Lletget-----------
    Gio/Morris/Weah---Altidore----Pulisic

    RCB, #10, #9, and maybe a LB so Dest can move over, but I feel pretty good about most of that XI.

    Step 1: Make sure teams can't punch up & knock us off.

    Institute/teach a base system to enough players (at various age groups) that we can dominate possession, even with the B team, vs non-Mexico CONCACAF teams and not get burned on the counter (especially by the Ticos).

    If we can do that, we should be Hex proof & qualify for the WC (every time) and the OLY (most times).

    Once we get that done, and I think we are close, then we can worry more about Step 2. Which is tactical & in game nous for US to win 50/50 games & punch up. That is step 2.

    We are just getting the broth down at this point. The rest of the stew comes later.
     
    Pegasus repped this.
  17. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    I agree that's often the plan. That can work, but if you loft a ball over after a few slow passes it's generally not quick enough. The opening has to be recognized quickly and hit with some pace. I'm talking more speed of play than a specific tactic.
     
    Patrick167 repped this.
  18. Calling BS

    Calling BS Member+

    Orlando City
    United States
    Jan 25, 2020
    Yes, that switch needs to be driven. If it’s played behind the fb, it can be lofted a bit.
     
  19. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    I meant to break that one down. I thought it was pretty cool. I have 5 min before my first meeting so I have to be quick. Watch llanez and the team shift heavily to the right. The D shifts with them and bang. Open space on that side to capitalize on and they are in. It was a poor pass that lofted too much.

    Where you are seeing pointless passing around the back and I am seeing different things they are doing while passing around the back to open up chinks in the armour. The llanez one where he steps backward and Vines steps forward. And the last one are good examples of that.

    They are reading the defense, moving the ball and moving the players trying to get the cb's to bite and create an opening. Then they are capitalizing on those together in sync. This game that final ball was just a little off or it would have been a much higher score. Pretty cool to me.
     
  20. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    I have no problem with overloading and crossing field or whatever you want to call the specific movement. There are many ways a defense can be pulled apart with passing and movement. All I said was if we're going to do that sort of thing it has to be quicker. We take too much time back there for it to be effective and that's why we got little to no penetration most of the game and it is a pattern. Quick ball movement is absolutely necessary f you want to break a team down with passing and movement. Moving slowly around the field is too easy to track and is what we have been doing too often. That's why we only got 2 open looks on goal and a PK after carrying so much possession.
     
    Pragidealist repped this.
  21. nobody

    nobody Member+

    Jun 20, 2000
    Look at the second of your .gifs I mentioned. There, we did well and moved the ball quickly, hit that diagonal ball first time and ended up creating a 2 v 1 on the left side. We need more of that higher tempo play and then we can actually create openings. As long as we move at a leisurely pace, the defense can shift and adjust and we don't really get anywhere.
     
    Pragidealist repped this.
  22. Patrick167

    Patrick167 Member+

    Dortmund
    United States
    May 4, 2017
    The Olympics as a program goal is overblown. Maybe the best thing Gregg did was state out loud, "I don't think the Olympics have any long range effect on the program". It is a side show youth tournament.

    I don't get upset about Camp Cupcake being a de facto Olympic camp because its usual purpose is counter productive. Also, last year under GB, it was actually tried as the center piece of the whole program. (an explanation of that: https://chasingacup.com/moneyball-an-explanation-for-2019/)

    Instead of jumping the queue with MLS lifers and low potential prospects like Trapp and Ramirez and Lovitz, we at least are jumping the queue with high potential or at least U23 players like Llanez and Aaronson.

    We at least got an answer on whether a U19 Bundesliga player, if matched head to head, with an MLS starter (Lewis) could be better. We've been told for a year that a player getting "First Team" minutes would always perform better than a "Youth Player". Well, GB and Kreis looked at Llanez and Lewis head to head and started Llanez.

    The leading prospects are not available for Camp Cupcake. It really could be scrapped, which would have saved us from 2019. But as a U23 camp it makes more sense as O23 MLS talent is not really useful anymore.
     
  23. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    #123 Pragidealist, Feb 5, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2020
    Quicker- sometimes. It has to be synced. There are 4 basic ways to break down a defense.
    • position superiority- such as having your striker float between two cbs and make it hard to mark. Or switching the point of attack with diagonal balls. Basically using space well to get an advantage.
    • dynanic superiority- The ball movement can vary but with llanez coming forward and pulling the cb and vines getting in behind- the offense new where they were going before the defense and that created an opening. Speed is important there but coordination and being in sync is just as important. Basically using movement (synced movement) to gain an advantage.
    • quality superiority- give it pulisic and let him beat his man. Pure talent to get an advantage
    • numerical superiority- basically try to create 2v1 match ups. That's basically overloads.

    Like anything speed is important but its also important that it happens at the right time. They did that very well against Costa Rica. It looked slower in the mid and the back at times but that is because they were staying in sync and waiting to move the defense a specific way before springing into a high speed. Changing speed is just as important and often more important than working at one high speed.
     
  24. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    I agree. But that is also predicated on the defense and how the team moves together. I do think there are times (a lot last year) they were reading the game too slow. The problem is that its not always the ball carriers fault. Sometimes its the other guys hesitating before making that checking run or not doing the interchange.

    A great example of that was the time the US almost gave it away at the goal kick. LLegett was supposed to come back for the ball. His movement was predicated on the defenses movement. When they did that - we do this. LLegett had a moment of intention or forgot and it made it look like the GK had sticky feet and made a bad pass. In reality they were a little out of sync.

    We saw A LOT of that last year and it was what got me concerned. We were only seeing them in sync against slower opponents who were more forgiving of their miscues. Against the high press of canada 1- the US were punished more. Even against Canada 2- they made up for teh miscues with hustle. Which is fine to get a result but was still concerning for me. This game we saw them much more in sync all game long. That was exciting to see and bodes well for the year.
     
  25. Pragidealist

    Pragidealist Member+

    Mar 3, 2010
    To clarify- I'm mostly agreeing with you. They need to be quicker and in sync more consistently. Where I disagree is in this particular game, I thought they were that against Costa Rica. Really the best we've seen of todate.

    Their problem in this game were things like Llannez missing the final ball twice (once to JF and once to PA). PA missing a shot. JF not going hard to the front post to get in on the ball. A ball or two that was lofted a bit too much instead of hit a bit more driven. Small things that resulted in them not capitalizing on the openings they created. They get a bit of a pass on those from me because they were all so young and they did the other (more important stuff imo) very very well.
     

Share This Page