Wahl: full-strength US vs. CRC the right decision

Interesting article, and it makes some good points (like Bradley Jr. mentioning how we needed a strong effort from Brazil to get us through in the Confed. Cup).

But let's suppose that we're in the World Cup and have won our first two group games. Would Wahl still argue that we should field a full strength team for the 3rd game, even if we had already won the group?

 

I would play the 1st teamers that aren't in yellow card trouble. I wouldn't want to interrupt my momentum, and would want to keep my players sharp.

 

YEah-- there's a difference between playing and playing hard. What was interesting was how hard we played against CRC- I think the "fair play" aspect really mattered to our players. Also, they really wanted to win for Davies. It was an emotional game for us.

 

Grant forgot to mention 2002...

When we went down 2-0 early to Poland, all South Korea had to do to win the group at that point was get a draw with Portugal, which would have advanced the Portuguese as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's what Portugal may have been expecting (you think they didn't know the result of the US-Poland game when they came out of the locker room at the half?).

(wink, wink nod, nod)

Of course, it didn't work out that way. The Koreans scored, Portugal went home, we gave Mexico the ultimate dos a cero, and played Germany off the pitch only to be denied by Torsten Frings' forearm and Hugh Dallas' inablity to exhale with his whistle in his mouth. OK, and Ollie Kahn too.

None of which happens if South Korea doesn't play hard for the full 90.

Fair play, indeed.

 

If you look at the last World Cup, teams had anywhere between 7-10 days pass between their second game of the group stage and their 2nd round game.

That's not so much time that players are going to lose match sharpness. In fact, it's more or less the amount of time that passes between games in a European league season.

Then consider that your first choice players had just played two very intense games within only 5 days. Allowing them some extra rest and recovery could only be beneficial. So why risk losing them to injuries or red cards if you don't have to?

FWIW - In the last World Cup, Spain had clinched first place in the group after their 2nd game, and in the 3rd game (vs. Saudi Arabia) they fielded an entire team of reserve players. They even played a different formation.

 

In other news Saudi Arabia always sucks at soccer.

 

Sure. But that doesn't mean they'd be any less capable of injuring a Spanish 1st choice player, by accident or on purpose.

 

My point is Spain could still win easily with all their reserves and avoid injury to their top players. I don't remember what the result was in this game, but I wouldn't be surprised if Spain won it anyway. Its not the same situation as a US vs CR game (where the result mattered for CR and Honduras). I imagine in this group Saudi Arabia was also already eliminated so playing reserves didn't really affect anything. I could be wrong in this assumption, but I just think its a bad example because its a different situation due to the disparity in skill level between Spain and Saudi Arabia.

 

south korea had home pressure to perform well, please their fans...

i think a direct red is the only way you miss wc finals actions...a 2nd yellow does not cause you to miss a match?? then yellows get wiped clean...

usa really lacked urgency to play well, their LIFE was not in jeopardy, or rather playing conmebol...

huge difference, you play a bit scared when you can be eliminated, sharper perhaps too...

as to davies, if you play better because of his accident, does that mean you play LESS better IF it hadn't of happened...if you ened that sort of motivation, then in the long run, you won't accomplish mush

 

They also played a different team in the 3rd match at the confed cup.

 

I don't think one can compare benching starters in a third group game to benching starters in a WC qualifier eight months ahead of the tournament.

First, the primary reason to bench starters in a tournament is to avoid fatigue associated with playing several games in a couple weeks. This obviously doesn't apply to a game months in advance of the next meaningful game.

Second, during the tournament coaches need to be very worried about avoiding minor injuries (which are a lot more common than major ones),because even a minor injury can knock out a key player for the rest of the competition.

Third, a coach may want to give reserves some World Cup experience, in case they may be needed later or just to reward them for making the team.

It makes perfect sense to bench starters for a meaningless third group game, but the reasons for doing so mostly don't apply to a situation like the US vs. Costa Rica.

 

And guess what happened to Spain in the knockout rounds after playing backup squads in the 3rd game in 06 and 09.

They lost both games (to the tournament runner-ups both times).

Lesson learned?

 

Spain has lost a lot of tournament games to a lot of teams. I think that's the pattern here. 2 games doesn't make a pattern.

 

I don't remember anything but a minority of people saying we shouldn't play to win.

 

Actually, the Saudis were not yet eliminated. They still had a shot at finishing in 2nd place, albeit a long shot.

I mentioned Spain because I wanted to point to an example of a team that had basically wrapped up first place in their group after the 2nd game -- with 6 pts and a +6 GD their lead was almost insurmountable -- and fielded a team made up of reserves in their final match.

 

Wahl: reminding me why I don't pay money to read Sports Illustrated anymore.

Of course it was the wrong decision.

Yes, it was the best decision for the "integrity" of the competition, but Bradley's first loyalty is what the best for our team.

He wasted a chance to evaluate some fringe players in a meaningful match. The last one before June, by the way.

Plus, you had just had one of your players almost killed in a car accident, a giant, "play it safe" sign from the cosmos if I've ever seen one.

Now, I'm not saying we should have fielded a team of 11 reserves. But I've had mixed in a starter or two (and Gooch probably would have been among them, given his lack of PT). I'm not saying it was a bad decision because Gooch got injured, but playing a full strength squad was a bad decision for other reasons.

 

A long shot probably included them outscoring Spain and another result going their way and a big Goal Difference swing. For the Saudi's, a really bad team as I said before, that's not a real shot.

Just looked and it looks like they needed Ukraine to lose to Tunisia... unlikely and to win by a few goals over Spain and to end up with a better GD than Tunisia who was ahead of them by a few on GD at the start of that day.

 

I agree, they are two different situations.

I was just wondering if Wahl would still stick to his argument -- that of using the "top guys" because the result might not be meaningless to other teams -- if the U.S. were in the World Cup situation that I described.

 

He's a journalist. He'll write whatever he thinks will get a reaction.

 

So you're in the business of reading signs from the cosmos? Are you really Miss Cleo?

 

You would have been the first guy to rip Bradley if he did what you propose and we got slaughtered.

Bradley did the right thing. His choice first team had the opportunity to play another serious match together. How many of these types of games will Bradley have before the WC next year? Maybe 4 or 5.

Injuries are a part of playing soccer. Unfortunately we don't have the type of depth other teams have and that means injuries to our starters are far more difficult to overcome.

 

And at the Euros.

Indeed.

 

His point is well-taken, however, that we need to use these opportunities to field some players who are potential WC back-ups. Our recent match vs. Denmark demonstrated how truly thin we are and the consequences of playing players who don't see a lot of time together.

Obviously you need to strike a delicate balance but the reality is nearly our entire starting lineup played this summer and fall together between the Confed and WCQ - we could have used the CR game to take a look at few guys who may ultimately be relied on to step in SA.

 

This whole debate is silly. Even if you buy the argument that we should have sat our regulars and played the reserves, all of us still would have clamored for Oguchi Onyewu to play in order to maintain sharpness, since he wasn't getting any playing time with his club.