USA vs. Spain general post game thread [R]

Highlights of the game: Minute 17:50

Jones perfect pass to Rogers.. It's so perfect that it unexpectedly hits him on the head.

At the minute 39:20, Jones first touch fed Rogers with the best chance of goal for the US, and he obviously choked.

 

I agree overall, but I wonder if this is a behind the scenes issue where Bob has basically no say.

I don't think any of us have a problem with him not sending out the A lineup 3 days before the first game of the Gold Cup.

I don't even have a problem with a friendly 3 days before the Gold Cup, as I imagine there are some things he want's to work out before the 'real' games.

The problem is when we dick around with the lineup against a Top 10 side, we're always going to get hammered.

This big cash-grab friendlies make sense when they're played at a time when we can send out our top team and go all-out (see the Argentina friendly for example).

My guess is that Bob would have gladly played someone like ...i dunno... Northern Ireland or Peru or something right now, but the confederation saw an opportunity to bring in a big-name for a money making game and took it.

Basically I think the interests of the confederation (make money when possible) and the team (prepare for a big tournament) were in conflict here.

It just feels to me that with a little more thought these games can be played at the right times.

 

Problem #1,245,640 as to why it was bad that US Soccer became big business before we were anywhere near a good soccer nation.

 

I'm still mad about the GC game in DC 4 years ago (was it really that long ago?). Bad and boring US team playing bad other team. Tickets were really expensive.

It will be a long time before I go see another game. For this game, remind me, was it advertised as a US 'B' team scrimmage vs. the best NT in the world?

I wonder what the players think about being sent out to be slaughtered and embarrassed on their home turf.

 

I was never in favor of a friendly match of any sort only 72 hours b/f we start the Gold cup because of the risk of injury/tiring out key players b/f a FIFA event.

The lack of logic surrounding yesterday's debacle is simply stunning.

If our federation felt that we needed a match to get our players used to being together, then, if possible, schedule something for a day or two earlier so that they players who will be on the field for the bulk of the tournament can get some time together.

If it's impossible to schedule a friendly so that our team has 5 or so days of rest before the start of the Gold Cup, but insist on scheduling a game anyway, then you must realize that subs will be playing the bulk of the minutes in the game. If that's the case try to find a team that will be challenging, but not overwhelming. A second tier European, South American or top tier Asian team would have been good.

In the unlikely event that the only two choices our federation had were 1. Play Spain on Saturday afternoon or 2. No game at all b/c no other suitable opponents on the planet were available on Saturday and/or it was not possible to schedule any game whatsoever on Wed or Thurs, then I would have chosen option 2.

But option 1 was chosen. At that point someone in the federation had to realize that we'd be playing scrubs against Spain, who was motivated to stomp us after the '09 Confed Cup.

And it was even worse than that since Bradley was forced to play some regulars in the second half becuase he needed to prevent Spain from scoring in the double digits and risk damaging the US brand any further. So he ended up risking injury and tiring out some key players anyway.

This decision was almost certainly made solely to collect a big payday and to get the US team on ESPN, playing a big name opponent, on a Saturday afternoon, which is primetime for watching soccer on TV in this country. I'm as big of a capitalist as anyone, but not every decision can be made for money. This game hurt the US brand. Badly. A spectacular own goal if I ever saw one.

 

Agree completely.

 

We had an equally baffling friendly last year late in the MLS season - when he didn't call up any MLS players who were in the thick of the playoff hunt.... sort of negating the entire point of playing within the US.

Making all your European players come to the US when you're playing a 2/3 strength team made little to no sense. Would have been an ideal time to play @ any available European team to minimize the travel for most of your players (and basically all the important ones).

 

ESPN made their $$$, the Federation took their cut, all is right in the world of American sport.

Plus ca change...go back ten, twenty years...the same story just different actors.

 

Talk about putting the cart before the horse! And who cares if the good people who pay to watch this ordure have to bring their s*** shovels with them? A lurid example of the mindset which is slowly but inexorably denigrating this country. We have met the enemy and he is us...

 

That's just flat out not true. Bradley could have a bad hexagonal as coach and the US could easily still qualify.

 

Live, I didn't think Jozy looked that bad.


Does anyone have a copy of the game? Would love to see it over
PM me

 

No doubt. It's opinions like that which make you wonder whether people have been paying attention to US soccer since 2006. Not only did Bradley win the hexagonal during the last World Cup qualifying campaign, but he won a Gold Cup, made the final of a Confederations Cup, and the US finished 1st in a World Cup group for the first time.

The anti-Bradley brigade is just living in some sort of delusional fairy-tale land. He's not Jose Mourinho, but his record shows that he's more than good enough to lead this country to the WC in 2014. (And I'm not bleeding-heart Bradley supporter.)

We have a penchant for real over-reaction on these boards. This was one loss against the best team in the world without some our best players. People need to simply settle down and await the upcoming beatdown of Canada.

 

Spain lost 4-0 to portugal in a friendly before the WC.

Edu and Jones looked pretty tired after camp and a long season.

 

all things considered I don't think Lichaj or Ream looked terrible in the back, they had their hiccups but they weren't our biggest weakness.

Edu and Jones didn't look good. They just seemed to be going through the motions

 

CE, quite the spin move --that ol' admission he's not Jose' Mourinho. As if that was remotely the issue. Bradley's not even Bruce Arena. He's not even Bora Milutinovic. And given the "talent" Gansler had to work with, it's doubtful Bradley is any better. But he has done better than Sampson, so kudos to you.
A couple of points. That Bradley is "good enough" to lead the USA to qualification in Concacaf, given the talent level we had reached by the mid 90's, is the base requirement for any one who passes for a living breathing national team manager. After all, even the much maligned Sampson achieved that [as well as the semifinals of the Copa America].
Drop the "anti" and that 180 degree rotation will finally have you aligned with reality. The delusion that what Bradley has achieved is remotely good enough to keep him as our manager is a sickness you have embraced, and it embraces not so much the man as the mad contentment with mediocrity and the conscious decision to abandon any aim at improvement, never mind excellence.
Now keep on practicing penchant moves.

 

You do realize that the game itself, whatever the ameliorating circumstances may have been, was a disaster?

Except why play Bradley, Dempsey and Goodson at all then?

And, if you play them, why not start them?

This was a dumb coaching move by a dumb coach. He could have given his top players their first half and then took them out at half-time, which is close to what del Bosque did.

Furthermore, I bet Bob did not think his line-up was as hopeless as some of these post facto justificators. Ream started vs. Paraguay. Spector started in the Confederations Cup. Rogers was one of the best US players vs the Czech Republic in the Send-Off Series. Kljestan had a decent second half of the season at Anderlecht and Agudelo has an excellent scoring rate for the US.

In his mind, this team was going to be competitive.

This the same "our players ain't good enough" excuse that Bob's apologists have been trotting out for ages.

Much bigger problem is that the coach is worse than his players.

As I'd mentioned above, he played his entire 1st team roster - Howard; Cherundolo, Gooch/Goodson, Ream, Lichaj; Spector, Dempsey, Bradley, Edu, Jones, Kjlestan, Rogers - Altidore, Agudelo, Wondlowski - that was available for the game.

He just managed to screw it up. Plus, he got horribly outcoached.

These players would have a decent work-out anyway. There was nothing wrong with scheduling this game. You've only convinced yourself of that because of the result.

The subs should have come out in the second half. The starters go 45-60, which is fine with 3 days left before a match against a mediocre Canadian side.

What, do you think clubs don't have an arduous training session on a Wednesday before a Saturday match?

This is not true.

Spain made largely defensive subs in order to kill the game off.

Bob hurts the US brand, not scheduling top opponents.

If Tim Howard doesn't make 3-4 one-on-one saves vs. Argentina, that one could have had the same score.

Ditto for Guzan vs. Brazil.

And those had A-type rosters.

 

Really?? Then there sure as Hell was a lot of wasted effort here to pick the best starting lineup. Did anyone predict anything close to the disaster that was thrown out there?

You have 6 freaking subs, start your best guys and rest them after a half.

USSF does have a mandate to grow the game, complete bait & switch for the paying customer does not do that.

 

I have to disagree.
That lineup was never going to be competitive. He and everyone on the staff had to know that.
Our backup player aren't good enough though. Because of that, its hard to know whether Bradley is at fault or not. Clearly he made some dumb decisions today, but given that it was a friendly, its hard to know what he was trying to do. He's essentially operating every game with an aging defense, no left back and no real forward team, just a bunch of guys with potential. Its really hard to know whether its him or the US player pool. You are clearly sure its him. I'm not so sure one way or the other.

 

my completely unsubstantiated opinion was that bradley was trying to make it the whole game with the b+ team; however, after the brutal first half he had no choice but to stop the bleeding and to try to preserve some honor (i know ...didn't do much good). so it wasn't a case of intentionally planning to sub the first string at halftime.

it seems pretty naive in retrospect

 

Yeah, I agree with this. I'm surprised the USSF and people on here aren't more concerned re: the fans' experience at the game.

I've been following the NT since the early 90s and I have learned a few things and one of them is: you never travel to friendlies. You simply can't count on the US team trotting out a proper starting 11 or even taking it seriously. A lot of people traveled to see the US play England a few years' back and then settled into their seats to watch Zat Knight vs. Clyde Simms. It's too easy to get burned in a friendly.

I think most regular US-team fans know this but what about the several thousand people that went to Mass. who are only sort-of familiar with the national team and laid out big bucks to watch Landon Donovan and the US take on the World Champs in a rematch of the Confed Cup semifinals and then saw...whatever the ******** that was? They may never want to return to a game again. Or worse, return to rooting for their other favorite national team. Plus, as Rufus points out, it de-legitimizes in ESPN's eyes too (or at least the average sportscenter fans' eyes.) These perceptions matter.

 

ESPN3.com???

 

if you're not risking losing then they are never gonna improve. Spain B team is better then us. It's a learning experience.

I'm much more concerned about why, in a country with hundreds of suitable stadiums, No NFL or College football using fields in months thus they should be in good condition), and a country that's built soccer stadiums, why they insist on putting games on bad recently sodded fields where the ball rolls poorly and that is too soft and has grass too long. I'm sure cause they care more about the money then the game which i'm not sure is better or worse then the English FA which for a long time wanted a good pitch but was too inept to grow grass at wembley. But honestly, i don't think U.S. understands why you need a good pitch to play good football. It's not important to them.

 

Has there ever been a coach who had players at his disposal but was intentionally throwing the game?

Besides those that were obviously fixed?

And, if Bob did this knowingly, he deserves to be canned right now.

He inserted his presumed starters in at half-time. Why couldn't he have played them from the opening?

Of course, he is at fault.

The opposing coach came up with a different game tactics from the last time these two teams met and he didn't adjust a thing until the score was 0:3.

In-game adjustments are coach's responsibility. You do know that?

This is why Gulati didn't hire Klinsmann. Even a mediocrity like Jürgen would have been heads and shoulders above a failure like Bob Bradley ... but then you'd all know how bad of a decision the 2007 move really was.

And Gulati can never admit this publicly.

 

Tim Howard interview about Spain and other things.

[ame="http://vimeo.com/24668162"]USMNT Spotlight: Tim Howard on Vimeo[/ame]

 

The US needs a new coach. We have had 8 years of Bruce Arena and 5 of Bradley. Bradley was once Arena's assistant. The US has an inbred system. The coaching staff and Federation need a shake-up.

Furthermore, the new coach should be someone who has either coached a large European Club or who has coached a good national team. Both Arena and Bradley came from the NCAA college soccer system. They learned soccer from a book and from playing bad college games in the 1970s. That's why they still think that "hustle" can make up for lack of skill and soccer knowledge.

My guess is that US players do not want a foreign coach. Most of the US players have had bad experiences overseas and they feel that foreign coaches think US players are just hunks of meat that run all day. Well, if it looks like a duck....

The system needs a shake-up. Get a good foreign coach with experience and let that person run the team through the next World Cup. If the players don't like it they can drop out of the team. Enough of this "gung-ho" USA attitude. It doesn't mean jack on the field.