US Vs Mexico Analysis

Rick, I am not trolling, but that was not even a particularly rough game. It was an intense battle but fairly clean. I saw no cheap shots from either side. Pendergast is not great but he really made no glaring errors either.Let's face it, both teams were fairly cautious- that is not Pendergasts fault!

 

The thuggery went both ways. I think Pendergast lets way too much go, but at least he was more or less consistent. Just an all-around crap game, although I liked Davino and Bautista. I think one thing is obvious is, no matter how much the USA have improved, the Mexicans' touch and ballskills are waaaay beyond anything on the US team.

 

soccer is a game of skill and athleticism. The Mexican team is more skillful, the USA team is more athletic. I guess it will always be that way.

 

This is what I don't understand about Mexico. They always seem surprised the US is going to play this way. The counter attack works brilliantly for US. The US has superior speed - this cannot be denied. So, what better way to handle this than let the whole Mexican team come up and then the US can can clear field up top when they gain posession.

The Mexicans seem content to control the midfield and nothing else. From my vantage point, the US let the mexicans have 30 yards out and beyond. The Mexicans couldn't get into the danger zone. The Mexicans would be much better off opening up the game and play a little of the US style of counter attack. This would open up things a lot for them. Agreed?

 

I don't agree. Remember if the goal is for both USA and Mexico to make it to the top of the heap in the world they will have to play and beat the likes of Germany, England and Italy. This is WAY below average physicality for a German or English game. Remember( or trust me if you are an ElTri fan) that Germany pounded the crap out of us physically at the WC in 1998 and in a friendly in 2001. If the goal is to get both teams ready for the really big time, they had both better get used to a reasonably physical game.
As I said, this was a normal, intense,fairly clean game by world standards.

 

both teams play to their strengths. Why should either team play differently? Actually, I thought El Tri were pretty cautious.

 

I like exchanging ideas with ElTri fans because even though we are neighbors and rivals, the culture and way the game is played is different. The teams and fans can learn from each other.

 

Because, maybe the mexicans want to win. Failure to adjust after failure is sure to increase more failure.

Being cautious is the problem for Mexico. If they want to win, they'd be wise to create some more opportunities for themselves. Counter attacking a counter attack may do the trick for them.

 

i thought the game got ugly at points, but never as ugly as that field.

 

well, I would say they DID adjust. They played possession but they were a touch more cautious about it. They got half-caught on the counter a few times, but never caught big-time. Give Mexico credit- they played a smart but cautious game. Not brilliant but not stupid either.

 

But, you are only speaking of their defense. I say they play overly cautious on offense. And, there really is no reason to be cautious on offense. The Mexican attack is too measured. They need to go at it with a little more gusto. And they didn't do that. The Americans were too happy to slow them down and then get people back. The Mexicans couldn't break that. The Mexicans need to counter attack like the Americans. It will open it up much more and that is what the Mexicans need.

 

You're trolling Evil Rick. Regardless, whether you want to admit it or not, the US actually has determined the way the game is played. Mexico wants to play the slow it down, control the midfield type of game. The US has agreed to let the Mexicans do that. And guess what - it does nothing for the Mexicans, yet allows the US team to show their speed.

Mexicans want to do that, fine. It only helps the Americans. Mexicans would be wise to adjust their strategy.

 

I thought Davino and Carmona looked superb in the back, Davino got better as the game went on and was looking the best I'd seen him with la seleccion since 1998. He figured out how to more effectively mark Donovan later in the game and I totally felt confident with him marshalling things back there.

Carmona was class the whole match through, all over the place, chose his spots to come forward and covered well in the back, played very intelligently all the way. Briseno didn't impress me and made me a bit nervous in the first half when he was the one primarly matched up with Donovan.

In the middle, JP Rodriguez had a good first half. I still think there are far better options in midfield however. The midfield was tight. Perez and Valdez were good, maintained possession, showed poise and controlled the pace. Altamirano did good stuff on the right and looked dangerous at times, I'm definitely excited to see more of him.

Arellano needs to unload near the goal, he played well, but I think they needed him to take a bit more of the lead in finishing things off since they really didn't have anyone who was a proven finisher at the international level. He drove me nuts a couple times when he tried to get that one last touch on the ball instead of just letting it rip.

Bofo worked hard and showed some creativity with the bicycle, but I was hoping that he'd have shown just a bit more. I thought Bravo was more or less non-descript. Arce had a few good touches as did Rubirosa.

The gameplan seemed good, and I was glad to see they showed up to actually play instead of waiting for the US to lay down for them. They played hard, maintained possession and managed to not get burned by the US counter. Things seem to be progressing rather slowly with Lavolpe, I think evaluating him is much more difficult than getting a feel for what Aguirre was doing because after **** there was nowhere to go but up and watching them it was obvious that he brought something sorely needed at the time. What I have liked about him so far is that he's making use of some fresh meat and that he's got guys like Davino and Pardo playing well again, at a level commensurate with their ability. As a team, they're developing an identity and they seem to play cohesively and attractively.

ricv56

 

i guess we need a Mexican coach (or Argentinian )so he can teach us how to handle the ball so perfectly, there must be some kinda secret about it, i like the Mexican team better to night.

 

Mexico's problem is not just with USA. They didn't score against Colombia, Argentina and Brazil with good amount of possession.

The problem:

1) Slow buildup. Mexico's build up is very slow. Great control of ball and great short passes. But the way they moved the ball to the 30 yards, guess what? A defense is already sit and waiting. US defense is well-organized, but no mean a top defense. Beside Pope, Boca and Califf are inexperienced guys. So think about if you have to face an European or Argentinian defense. You will get nothing out of it.

2) Wing play. Even though Mexico has two good wingers in Morales and Arellano, but they are not effectively using the width of the field. Their cross are not good too and only have one guy in Borgatti having a good header.

For US, believe me, Bruce Arena is not a bunker guy. The only time he plays bunker ball is when he feels his team wasn't fit enough--and this is true in World Cup and in this game because MLS just started. Another reason is that he doesn't have a good possession player in the hand right now--JOB is playing in Europe, Reyna is hurting, Martino is too green. With an out of form Mathis as attacking midfielder, US isn't good at control possession at all. Just waiting for two more years, when Buddle, Martino, E. Johnson, Quaranta mature up and Adu comes to age, you will be suprised.

 

You're trolling by insulting the way the US plays. But I don't care.

I think so by the reality that Mexicans rarely threatened in the penalty box despite that they controlled the midfield. Over and over I saw the US players rushing backing while the Mexicans played with ball in the 30 plus yards in front of the American goal. What did the Mexicans have to show for control of the midfield - 5 shots on goal? Not a very offensive minded group in my book.

 

I didn't understand how Mexico could dominate possession like they did and not have more chances on goal. The only dangerous situation I remember was the shot that Howard knocked over the bar.

The US played alot more bunker style this time than they did in Korea. I know part of the reason they did this was the squad lacked experience and skill that the European based players bring to the team, and they tried to make up for this gap with hustle and hoping for a little luck. Anytime you see a US squad starting both Chris Armas and Pablo Mastroeni you know that they are going defense first, try and break up any rythm in the midfield for the opposition and don't have any bad give aways that lead to goals.

 

On the US Nats' side, I was most impressed with Bocanegra. I hadn't seen much of him before but he's big and he definitely had presence back there. They looked solid containing in the back, but that's been a trademark of theirs, at least in games against El Tri, here lately. Pope did a good job on Bofo and Hejduk has improved so much in recent years, it's really impressive. He now brings more than just boundless energy. Califf isn't being counted on in the long term is he?

Somebody needs to start feeding DMB, he plays in Chicago, so there's no reason he shouldn't get more than enough protein in his diet. He's fast and everything, but until he gets bigger and better with his final touch he won't be the threat they're really hoping for out on the wing. It'll come with age for him, kinda like I think it did with Hejduk. Landon looked solid, though like I said in my other post, I think the Mexican defense, Davino in particular got better at marking him as the game went on. Others have made the point that he wore out, I s'pose that makes sense. Armas and Mastro were adequate.

McBride did what he does, he got one real good service the whole game. How old is he? Will he be counted on for 2006?

Good effort by the Nats. It was the first full game of theirs I'd seen since Korea/Japan. Arena has done remarkable things for them. They're always confident, patient, and well prepared.

ricv56