So the feed didn't kick in until around a quarter of the way through the match for me, but based upon what I saw when it did start working, I'm pretty sure I didn't miss much. Tactical abortion? That might be one way to describe it. If I hadn't seen Onalfo's chalkboard machinations before, I would have assumed that he didn't bother leaving any instructions since he was suspended for this match. Let's hit a few talking points, shall we...?
* WTF? vs. 4-4-2. Best I can figure it, the starting tactical diagram would have been a back four, King sitting in front of them to hold and distribute, and five guys (a d-mid, a winger, and three forwards) roaming about wherever the hell they wanted (Allsopp as winger?). Just awful. Particularly given the lack of off the ball movement. Then Emilio went down injured, Tino came on, we slipped into a more rigid 4-4-2 and, Hey Presto! the chances appear. First Tino plays in Allsopp who crosses for Moreno to...put into orbit. Then Moreno pops up in the same situation with Quaranta running wide, but, predictably, holds the ball too long.
* Class will tell. United sucked enough defensively to allow the Kickers quite a few good chances. Fortunately, the Kickers' last ball and finishing attempts would have fit right in with early-season United highlights. In contrast, Moreno, having blown the golden chance of the first half, stuck one in the corner of the net from the edge of the 18 early in the second half. And Quaranta, after some tedious dillydallying with Moreno that would have been punished by competent defenders, managed to hit a shot that deflected in for the second. But the classiest guy on the field was Dejan Jakovic, who looked a step above and a step ahead of everybody else. I still wonder how long we can manage to keep him.
* Find your level. Castillo has been shown the door, but there were a few others who looked like maybe we should put them on the bus home with the Kickers. McTavish may have been playing on his "off" side on the left of defense, but that doesn't excuse letting simple balls dribble past you out of bounds. Or failing to close down runners and crossers. And what about Morsink? I defended his contributions early in the season, but he was just a flat out pile of excrement in this match. I think more of his passes went to the opposition than teammates. And to top it off he kicked a ball at an opponent lying on the deck, engaged in his usual ref-bitching, and managed to almost start a fight in a largely bloodless game.
* Fortunate sons. Let's get this straight. On the scoresheet this goes down as a shutout. In reality, United will be thanking, in no particular order: Richmond's miserable crossing, Richmond's even more miserable finishing, Bill Hamid's shins, and the ref for swallowing his whistle on what looked a certain penalty against Barry Rice late in the second half. There were patches in the second stanza where United took the air out of the ball with some nice passing sequences. But between those patches, they created too little and allowed too much given the quality of the opposition.
To be certain, the lineup was jury rigged, attention was probably focused more on not getting hurt and on the Quakes match this weekend, and the field looked in pretty miserable condition. All of that said, the Open Cup—half-assed competition that it is—is pretty much United's only shot at glory this year, and the commitment level, both from players and coaches, needs to higher. Nevertheless, United march on to face the Harrisburg City Islanders in the quarterfinals. Here's hoping players and staff decide to take that one seriously because I'm not looking forward to United having zilch to play for with the summer only half over.
Sláinte!
Hello all and sorry for the absence, but love trumps soccer (usually)...and my wife and I had a fantastic couple of weeks in Ireland, thanks for asking. I've been back for a couple of days now but am still getting used to not having giant breakfasts prepared for me and rivers of stout flowing to my perch in front of the big screen in the pub ;-). In trying to get myself back into a blogging groove, I'll just outline a little of what went on in my "soccer life" while on my travels...
* I managed to catch all of the US matches in the World Cup save, probably fortunately, the first half of the Slovenia match. The lasting impression? Pleased we got out of the group, but disappointed that we didn't take full advantage of one of the (on paper) weaker portions of the bracket. I could fly my "sack Bob" flag for a couple of starting line-up decisions, but I was pleasantly surprised with some of his in-game changes. That said, unless Buddle was dinged, bringing on Gomez for Altidore in the Ghana match was completely brain-dead. Sure we needed a finisher, but Altidore's physicality was causing panic in the Ghanain ranks as the match wore on. Surely Buddle would have been the better option?
* I don't usually get a chance to canvas international opinion (mostly Germans, English, and, of course, Irish) on US players and the US team in general and wasn't really surprised with the whole "hard-working, resilient, better than the sum of its parts, organized," somewhat patronizing stuff. It was a little surprising, particularly with Donovan's Everton stint having gone so well, that the majority of those I talked to chose instead to focus on Dempsey. I suppose he's been doing the business in the Prem (which is where most of their attention is focused) for longer, but then, so has Howard, who got little to no attention save for folks saying we'd be better off with Friedel between the pipes...
* Irish opinion seemed split on France's miserable showing. RTE delighted in showing clips from multiple angles of Henry controlling a ball with his arm in one of their matches, and there certainly was a fair amount of shadenfreude to go around. But many wanted the French to advance reasonably far in order to (a) justify that they lost out (albeit unfairly) to a quality team and (b) make claims that, but for Henry's cheating, they might have gone deep into the tournament themselves.
* Of course, there was no such quibbling in a pub packed with Irish, Germans, and Yanks when it came to the English performance against Algeria, save for the table of suffering English folks (who, to be honest, handled things pretty gracefully before being rescued by the musicians kicking into gear shortly after full time).
* I caught the "condensed" United-Crew match and, despite the finishing and Terry Vaughn (in his usual fine form), thought the team looked pretty decent considering the time off and the injuries. I'm glad Castillo's finally been sent packing and wonder about the impact of our new Montenegran midfield meistro (M3?) when he finally arrives. We're still not going to make the playoffs. Any hope for video of tonight's Open Cup match since it's probably our best shot at glory this year?
* I wish Chile-Brazil was a prime-time or weekend match here. Sure it wasn't technically brilliant (indeed, it was a bit too quick and sloppy for my tastes), but the pace was ferocious—at times it more resembled hockey than soccer. If any match in this tournament was going to hook a potential American "fan on the fence" about soccer, that might have been it.
I suppose I must be forgetting something, but I'll work it into the posts as I get my groove back. Patience though. I've got a bit of catching up and re-adapting to do in other areas as well...
* I managed to catch all of the US matches in the World Cup save, probably fortunately, the first half of the Slovenia match. The lasting impression? Pleased we got out of the group, but disappointed that we didn't take full advantage of one of the (on paper) weaker portions of the bracket. I could fly my "sack Bob" flag for a couple of starting line-up decisions, but I was pleasantly surprised with some of his in-game changes. That said, unless Buddle was dinged, bringing on Gomez for Altidore in the Ghana match was completely brain-dead. Sure we needed a finisher, but Altidore's physicality was causing panic in the Ghanain ranks as the match wore on. Surely Buddle would have been the better option?
* I don't usually get a chance to canvas international opinion (mostly Germans, English, and, of course, Irish) on US players and the US team in general and wasn't really surprised with the whole "hard-working, resilient, better than the sum of its parts, organized," somewhat patronizing stuff. It was a little surprising, particularly with Donovan's Everton stint having gone so well, that the majority of those I talked to chose instead to focus on Dempsey. I suppose he's been doing the business in the Prem (which is where most of their attention is focused) for longer, but then, so has Howard, who got little to no attention save for folks saying we'd be better off with Friedel between the pipes...
* Irish opinion seemed split on France's miserable showing. RTE delighted in showing clips from multiple angles of Henry controlling a ball with his arm in one of their matches, and there certainly was a fair amount of shadenfreude to go around. But many wanted the French to advance reasonably far in order to (a) justify that they lost out (albeit unfairly) to a quality team and (b) make claims that, but for Henry's cheating, they might have gone deep into the tournament themselves.
* Of course, there was no such quibbling in a pub packed with Irish, Germans, and Yanks when it came to the English performance against Algeria, save for the table of suffering English folks (who, to be honest, handled things pretty gracefully before being rescued by the musicians kicking into gear shortly after full time).
* I caught the "condensed" United-Crew match and, despite the finishing and Terry Vaughn (in his usual fine form), thought the team looked pretty decent considering the time off and the injuries. I'm glad Castillo's finally been sent packing and wonder about the impact of our new Montenegran midfield meistro (M3?) when he finally arrives. We're still not going to make the playoffs. Any hope for video of tonight's Open Cup match since it's probably our best shot at glory this year?
* I wish Chile-Brazil was a prime-time or weekend match here. Sure it wasn't technically brilliant (indeed, it was a bit too quick and sloppy for my tastes), but the pace was ferocious—at times it more resembled hockey than soccer. If any match in this tournament was going to hook a potential American "fan on the fence" about soccer, that might have been it.
I suppose I must be forgetting something, but I'll work it into the posts as I get my groove back. Patience though. I've got a bit of catching up and re-adapting to do in other areas as well...
3 Keys for 2 Matches
Slovenia-Algeria certainly wasn't one for the ages. Neither team seemed particularly intent on winning the game, being content to knock the ball around the back and midfield, and the dearth of attacking lock-pickers on display was evident. The Slovenian goal would probably go down as the worst goalkeeping effort of the tournament thus far were it not for Robert Green's fumble last night. So what does the US need to do against these two eminently beatable teams?
Slovenia
Even with a man advantage, Slovenia never looked like creating a chance. The one that went in was a hopeful, and not particularly good, shot from outside the box that the Algerian keeper completely whiffed on. They're not ambitious in attack, don't boast much in the way of athleticism, and don't seem to have the spark of quality that might ignite a workmanlike team. So...
Slovenia
Even with a man advantage, Slovenia never looked like creating a chance. The one that went in was a hopeful, and not particularly good, shot from outside the box that the Algerian keeper completely whiffed on. They're not ambitious in attack, don't boast much in the way of athleticism, and don't seem to have the spark of quality that might ignite a workmanlike team. So...
- Torres Time. The center of the Slovenian midfield is small and pedestrian. We don't need two wrecking balls in the middle. Slovenia also seemed content to keep things in front of them and allow Algeria to build up the play slowly. That screams Torres to me. No need for Clark's energy and defensive work. Rather, let Torres pull the strings from deep and let Bradley get forward in support of the attacking four.
- High Energy. Niether Algeria or Slovenia played a high pressure game, but there were indications that the Slovenian center backs might not be the most tuned in at all times. Likewise, the central midfield didn't seem to have the ability to work dangerous through balls. With neither fullback getting forward much, putting high pressure on the center of midfield probably means the forwards will be even more starved of service than they were against Algeria. And keeping pressure on center backs prone to mental lapses might provide a few garbage chances.
- Pinch and Overlap. Given the lack of a physical presence in central midfield, Donovan and Dempsey's natural inclination to pinch in beneath the forwards should be encouraged. Width can be provided by quick strikers dragging defenders wide or through overlapping fullbacks. That's not to say that we go full kitchen-sink. Given Slovenia's lack of creativity, they'll be looking to the counter for chances, so we shouldn't over-commit. Still, a little ambition should be well-rewarded. Play possession ball, but play it with the urgency that Algeria lacked.
Algeria
Algeria looked the most likely to score for most of the match, but never really managed to create a real threat. They have more danger-men than Slovenia, but those danger-men are wings or wingbacks. The forwards seemed more hustle than sparkle.
- Dominate the Flanks. When Algeria looked dangerous (and it wasn't very often), they were bursting down the flanks or hitting early crosses to the forwards. The later should be bread-and-butter to Gooch and DeMerit. The former can be discouraged by pressing the issue in wide areas, both by forwards drifting wide and by the wide midfielders. This might be a match to consider wide midfielders who stay wide in order to keep the Algerian wing-backs honest.
- Hassle Yebda. Like Slovenia, Algeria were content to knock the ball around the back. Much of their possession cycled through Yebda in central midfield. Choking off his looks forward or keeping him under pressure in order to force bad decisions should swing the possession battle.
- Shoot Early, Shoot Often. If they didn't take the lesson from the England game, the US will need little more encouragement after watching Koren's tame effort trickle past the Algerian keeper. Keep hitting shots on frame. Test him. Make him work. The rewards will come.
Enjoy yourselves, I'm off to pack for Ireland...
Never Fight a Drama-War on Two Fronts | a USA Match Reaction
You wanna talk drama? As the minutes ticked down in South Africa, the thunder started to roll in central Pennsylvania. So I'm biting my nails on two fronts: (1) can the US hold on and (2) will the power stay on? Somewhere, there was probably some hidden part of me hoping the power would go so I didn't have an aneurysm for every ball lobbed towards Crouch in the box or white-shirted body flopping in Lampard set-piece territory. Nevertheless, the power held (until a minute and a half after the final whistle!) and so did the US defense.
Talking points? Sure, but it's going to be a bit scattershot, as I've yet to really process anything properly...
* The Gooch Dilemma. So does Bradley win this gamble or lose it? I think you might argue that Gooch wasn't entirely at the races on the England opener. The ball bounces to Heskey, and Gooch is in no-man's land. He hesitates, moving neither to fill the space opening behind him or cut off the angled ball through that Heskey eventually played. A further miscommunication with DeMerit (who reprised his solid outings from last summer in South Africa) on an England break, and I was already getting ready to issue the goat card. But he grew into the game. He started anticipating rather than reacting and made a game saver as Lampard dashed through the box. Towards the end, he was starting to fly into tackles and take the aerial battle to Crouch. Assuming his level of fitness remains, I think you've got to give Bradley the credit for rolling these particular dice.
* Miles Stand-off-ish. Poor pun, I know, but there were times in the second half that I was screaming for somebody to close down the English central midfielders and fullbacks. Way too much time on the ball. Of course, you have to balance that with the fact that the compact defense didn't let very many good chances through. There's always that temptation in the wake of a good result to ignore those little, niggling things that might have swung the balance but didn't. I think we got a little lucky with more than just the Green butter-fingers routine.
* The Kid is All Right. I'll admit it, I thought that Robbie Findley was going to stand out as the one player that didn't belong on the field with the others. I was wrong. No, he didn't really cause too much danger, but his touch and passing were assured for the most part, he worked hard, and he won more headers than I would have imagined him capable off. I'm still struggling to figure out how Carragher's "arm across the neck move" as Findley darted away didn't earn a second yellow for that sucking vortex of craptitude. Then again, I have an unreasoning hatred of Jamie Carragher so deep that even saying his name causes me to sneer. I don't hate England. Don't hate Liverpool. Just Carragher. Oh, and John Terry. I think I might even be tempted to trade in the point from this game for some of the life-long humiliation coming Robert Green's way to have been stuck on those two clowns. Sigh.
* Ya Takes Your Chances. Sometimes, as a team, the US is reluctant to pull the trigger from distance or run at defenders. Dempsey is always (and sometimes frustratingly so) the general exception to this tendency. Thankfully, it seemed to be catching with both Donovan and Altidore. And that's going to be key to imposing ourselves on the next two opponents, against whom we'll probably see more of the ball in non-breakaway positions.
* Wing weakness. I'm still shaking my head that Lennon never made any of his running at Boca count. I counted three times where Boca didn't even challenge for balls on the ground that looked 75-25 in his favor for fear that the little Spurs winger would somehow blow by him. I suppose there's something to that "Theo/Lennon/SWP don't have the soccer brains to take advantage of the lightning in their boots" theory. Thankfully. Because it sure looked like the breakthrough was going to come from Lennon. Phillips on the other flank caused a few moments of panic, but Cherundolo was probably my man of the match. His attacking impetus forced Capello's first sub, and the number of balls and runs he managed to cut out in the second half was impressive, particularly when he maintained possession for the US.
* Pinchy, Pinchy. Donovan and Dempsey both followed their natural tendency to pinch inside from their wide midfield positions. This did make the US attack a bit too narrow given that the fullbacks weren't providing much attacking width (probably wisely, given the speed on the English flanks). But I wonder if it had the added benefit of keeping Lampard and Gerrard a bit more honest in the center of England's midfield. Both had moments going forward, but not with the regularity that you see them barnstorming forward for their clubs. To be honest, when I saw the lineups, I immediately thought that the area in front of the center backs would be one that we could really exploit given that neither Lampard or Gerrard are particularly defensively oriented, and I was disappointed that we didn't do more with it.
So what's the grand overall impression? A bit muddled really, kind of like my talking points. I'm struggling a bit to draw any conclusions or match my expectations to reality, either on the plus side or the negative.
I would have taken a draw going in. I would have taken a one-goal loss to preserve the goal difference after 5 minutes were in the book, and it looked like the usual great unravelling was in progress. But when I look at those clods in central defense and the lack of balance in the English midfield, I wonder if perhaps we were a bit too conservative. I'm not going to dwell on that though. 1-1 against the group favorites is a fantastic result to start, particularly since the confidence could have so easily gone out the window after Gerrard's opener. That sort of resiliency (in El Salvador, home to Costa Rica, the Confed Cup, etc.) has been a feature of the Bradley era, whatever other doubts I may have about his leadership and tactical nous.
And with that, I'm afraid I'm going to leave you for the rest of the group stage. My wife and I are celebrating our 10-year anniversary wandering the back lanes of rural Ireland. I'm sure we'll pop in to pubs to catch the two remaining group stage matches (my calendar is, of course, already populated!), but I'm not sure I'll have the wifi to post match reactions. Here's hoping we see each other come knock-out stage time...
U! S! A!
Talking points? Sure, but it's going to be a bit scattershot, as I've yet to really process anything properly...
* The Gooch Dilemma. So does Bradley win this gamble or lose it? I think you might argue that Gooch wasn't entirely at the races on the England opener. The ball bounces to Heskey, and Gooch is in no-man's land. He hesitates, moving neither to fill the space opening behind him or cut off the angled ball through that Heskey eventually played. A further miscommunication with DeMerit (who reprised his solid outings from last summer in South Africa) on an England break, and I was already getting ready to issue the goat card. But he grew into the game. He started anticipating rather than reacting and made a game saver as Lampard dashed through the box. Towards the end, he was starting to fly into tackles and take the aerial battle to Crouch. Assuming his level of fitness remains, I think you've got to give Bradley the credit for rolling these particular dice.
* Miles Stand-off-ish. Poor pun, I know, but there were times in the second half that I was screaming for somebody to close down the English central midfielders and fullbacks. Way too much time on the ball. Of course, you have to balance that with the fact that the compact defense didn't let very many good chances through. There's always that temptation in the wake of a good result to ignore those little, niggling things that might have swung the balance but didn't. I think we got a little lucky with more than just the Green butter-fingers routine.
* The Kid is All Right. I'll admit it, I thought that Robbie Findley was going to stand out as the one player that didn't belong on the field with the others. I was wrong. No, he didn't really cause too much danger, but his touch and passing were assured for the most part, he worked hard, and he won more headers than I would have imagined him capable off. I'm still struggling to figure out how Carragher's "arm across the neck move" as Findley darted away didn't earn a second yellow for that sucking vortex of craptitude. Then again, I have an unreasoning hatred of Jamie Carragher so deep that even saying his name causes me to sneer. I don't hate England. Don't hate Liverpool. Just Carragher. Oh, and John Terry. I think I might even be tempted to trade in the point from this game for some of the life-long humiliation coming Robert Green's way to have been stuck on those two clowns. Sigh.
* Ya Takes Your Chances. Sometimes, as a team, the US is reluctant to pull the trigger from distance or run at defenders. Dempsey is always (and sometimes frustratingly so) the general exception to this tendency. Thankfully, it seemed to be catching with both Donovan and Altidore. And that's going to be key to imposing ourselves on the next two opponents, against whom we'll probably see more of the ball in non-breakaway positions.
* Wing weakness. I'm still shaking my head that Lennon never made any of his running at Boca count. I counted three times where Boca didn't even challenge for balls on the ground that looked 75-25 in his favor for fear that the little Spurs winger would somehow blow by him. I suppose there's something to that "Theo/Lennon/SWP don't have the soccer brains to take advantage of the lightning in their boots" theory. Thankfully. Because it sure looked like the breakthrough was going to come from Lennon. Phillips on the other flank caused a few moments of panic, but Cherundolo was probably my man of the match. His attacking impetus forced Capello's first sub, and the number of balls and runs he managed to cut out in the second half was impressive, particularly when he maintained possession for the US.
* Pinchy, Pinchy. Donovan and Dempsey both followed their natural tendency to pinch inside from their wide midfield positions. This did make the US attack a bit too narrow given that the fullbacks weren't providing much attacking width (probably wisely, given the speed on the English flanks). But I wonder if it had the added benefit of keeping Lampard and Gerrard a bit more honest in the center of England's midfield. Both had moments going forward, but not with the regularity that you see them barnstorming forward for their clubs. To be honest, when I saw the lineups, I immediately thought that the area in front of the center backs would be one that we could really exploit given that neither Lampard or Gerrard are particularly defensively oriented, and I was disappointed that we didn't do more with it.
So what's the grand overall impression? A bit muddled really, kind of like my talking points. I'm struggling a bit to draw any conclusions or match my expectations to reality, either on the plus side or the negative.
I would have taken a draw going in. I would have taken a one-goal loss to preserve the goal difference after 5 minutes were in the book, and it looked like the usual great unravelling was in progress. But when I look at those clods in central defense and the lack of balance in the English midfield, I wonder if perhaps we were a bit too conservative. I'm not going to dwell on that though. 1-1 against the group favorites is a fantastic result to start, particularly since the confidence could have so easily gone out the window after Gerrard's opener. That sort of resiliency (in El Salvador, home to Costa Rica, the Confed Cup, etc.) has been a feature of the Bradley era, whatever other doubts I may have about his leadership and tactical nous.
And with that, I'm afraid I'm going to leave you for the rest of the group stage. My wife and I are celebrating our 10-year anniversary wandering the back lanes of rural Ireland. I'm sure we'll pop in to pubs to catch the two remaining group stage matches (my calendar is, of course, already populated!), but I'm not sure I'll have the wifi to post match reactions. Here's hoping we see each other come knock-out stage time...
U! S! A!
U.G.L.Y You Ain't Got No Alibi | a DC United Match Reaction
Christ but we made heavy weather of that in the end didn't we? And pretty much flipped my MOTM vote back to Pontius. I mean, you know he'll be the favorite with his Keller-assisted hattrick, but until we shipped those two late ones, I was having trouble deciding between James for some terrific interceptions and 1-on-1 defending, Jakovic for keeping things calm at the back and winning the noggin war, or Perkins for finally looking like the keeper we traded away too much for. In the end, I suppose a result is a result, particularly for a side in desperate need of a boost heading into the short World Cup break.
Talking points? We'll keep it short owing to the late hour...
* Fullback Panic Attack. Whenever Seattle ran at us in the wide areas, our fullbacks were in all kinds of trouble, though better doubling up in the second half (and Sigi pulling Zakuani) helped alleviate the pain a little. Even with the ball at their feet you wondered how the fullbacks would manage to lose possession leading to a Seattle chance. Of course, I suppose having to defend a dude whose head looks like a fancily-sculpted bit of topiary from a woman's private areas would probably panic the best of them, right? Seriously, Freddie? Is Ljungberg Swedish for shrubbery?
* The Pontius Lesson. So I'll take my lumps here. I was pretty convinced (and I wasn't the only one) that Pontius was a forward. Turns out he's at his best when he's running at defenders from deeper areas. Even if he got a deflection on the first and Keller made a mess of the second, the work to get into shooting positions (there was a third that deflected over for a counter) demonstrated some wicked cutback-ery and left Sounders jocks strewn willy nilly about the plastic pitch.
* Faster Not Always Better. Given how much I harped on our glacial pace of play last year, you'd think I'd be happy that we're playing a quicker brand of ball. And I am, to a certain extent. The problem is that sometimes we seem to be playing quick one-touch stuff just for the sake of playing quickly. There were a number of first time touches that removed the ball from dangerous areas (oh, we're just outside the 18, let's boot it back diagonally to the half-way stripe!) or put our defenders on their heels (here you go, Devon; show me some of that fancy tripping over your own feet and back-passing).
Quick hits?
* Emilio is a bucket-load of bad touches slathered with a slimy coating of ineffectual paste. Ugh. I wonder why we didn't go to Cristman earlier in the second half when we were resorting to "boot it over yonder"-ball?
* Our crossing is 800 tons of crap. Well, save for the Phoenix's set pieces...
* That sound? Was that Andy Najar crashing back to earth? I'm pretty sure he'll recover.
I'm not going to pretend that I'm not delighted with the result. It's just that the late Seattle rally really tossed a bucket of cold water all over my enthusiasm. Sure, we banged in 3 on the road. But almost letting it slip away in the last five minutes with a 3 goal cushion? That would have made this train wreck of a season complete, huh? But what are we to think now that we survived?
United have crawled off the foot of the table and staggered to within shouting distance of the playoff spots. Should we entertain some hope that maybe there's something to salvage here? At about the 84 minute mark, I might have granted you that. It wasn't pretty, but a 3-0 result on the road in front of a packed house would have been some kind of spear-planting. Not classy, but gutsy and determined. Those two late goals though—they do make you think, make you wonder.
So although I'm a bit conflicted about what lies around the corner, for now it's a well-earned...
Vamos United!
Talking points? We'll keep it short owing to the late hour...
* Fullback Panic Attack. Whenever Seattle ran at us in the wide areas, our fullbacks were in all kinds of trouble, though better doubling up in the second half (and Sigi pulling Zakuani) helped alleviate the pain a little. Even with the ball at their feet you wondered how the fullbacks would manage to lose possession leading to a Seattle chance. Of course, I suppose having to defend a dude whose head looks like a fancily-sculpted bit of topiary from a woman's private areas would probably panic the best of them, right? Seriously, Freddie? Is Ljungberg Swedish for shrubbery?
* The Pontius Lesson. So I'll take my lumps here. I was pretty convinced (and I wasn't the only one) that Pontius was a forward. Turns out he's at his best when he's running at defenders from deeper areas. Even if he got a deflection on the first and Keller made a mess of the second, the work to get into shooting positions (there was a third that deflected over for a counter) demonstrated some wicked cutback-ery and left Sounders jocks strewn willy nilly about the plastic pitch.
* Faster Not Always Better. Given how much I harped on our glacial pace of play last year, you'd think I'd be happy that we're playing a quicker brand of ball. And I am, to a certain extent. The problem is that sometimes we seem to be playing quick one-touch stuff just for the sake of playing quickly. There were a number of first time touches that removed the ball from dangerous areas (oh, we're just outside the 18, let's boot it back diagonally to the half-way stripe!) or put our defenders on their heels (here you go, Devon; show me some of that fancy tripping over your own feet and back-passing).
Quick hits?
* Emilio is a bucket-load of bad touches slathered with a slimy coating of ineffectual paste. Ugh. I wonder why we didn't go to Cristman earlier in the second half when we were resorting to "boot it over yonder"-ball?
* Our crossing is 800 tons of crap. Well, save for the Phoenix's set pieces...
* That sound? Was that Andy Najar crashing back to earth? I'm pretty sure he'll recover.
I'm not going to pretend that I'm not delighted with the result. It's just that the late Seattle rally really tossed a bucket of cold water all over my enthusiasm. Sure, we banged in 3 on the road. But almost letting it slip away in the last five minutes with a 3 goal cushion? That would have made this train wreck of a season complete, huh? But what are we to think now that we survived?
United have crawled off the foot of the table and staggered to within shouting distance of the playoff spots. Should we entertain some hope that maybe there's something to salvage here? At about the 84 minute mark, I might have granted you that. It wasn't pretty, but a 3-0 result on the road in front of a packed house would have been some kind of spear-planting. Not classy, but gutsy and determined. Those two late goals though—they do make you think, make you wonder.
So although I'm a bit conflicted about what lies around the corner, for now it's a well-earned...
Vamos United!
Empty the Mailbag!
Direct from the FBF mailbag...
***
Mark says...
The Biggest Party on the Planet: An American at the World Cup
from the description at Amazon.com:
And Jeff says...
***
And finally, Zach from the USSF reminds us...
Passback Goes to South Africa!
If you are traveling to the World Cup - don’t forget to bring a second bag of soccer gear to donate! The U.S. Soccer Foundation has partnered with on-the-ground organizations in South Africa to ensure your equipment is going to a good cause. Check with your airline’s baggage policies – some allow a free second bag!
Find donation drop-off locations on our website.
By identifying a Passback location and donating soccer gear during your World Cup trip, you are helping the youth of the world play the game we have come together to celebrate – one piece of equipment at a time. Share the Equipment. Share the Game.
Visit our website to get started!
Cheering from home – but still want to help out? Make an online donation: www.ussoccerfoundation.org/donate
***
Plus, you can check out my latest "State of the States" column over at Albion Road.
***
Mark says...
"Just thought I'd let you know that my book, "The Biggest Party on the Planet: An American at the World Cup" is now available in paperback at Amazon"
The Biggest Party on the Planet: An American at the World Cupfrom the description at Amazon.com:
"It is a raucous, irreverent look at the wild times, spectacle and culture clash that can only happen when adventurous fanatics follow their National Teams to foreign shores."***
And Jeff says...
"Thought you and your readers my enjoy the trailer to a documentary I'm working on at Current TV. It's called "Soccer's Lost Boys," and it's about the dirty business of recruiting in West Africa."
***
And finally, Zach from the USSF reminds us...
Passback Goes to South Africa!
If you are traveling to the World Cup - don’t forget to bring a second bag of soccer gear to donate! The U.S. Soccer Foundation has partnered with on-the-ground organizations in South Africa to ensure your equipment is going to a good cause. Check with your airline’s baggage policies – some allow a free second bag!
Find donation drop-off locations on our website.
By identifying a Passback location and donating soccer gear during your World Cup trip, you are helping the youth of the world play the game we have come together to celebrate – one piece of equipment at a time. Share the Equipment. Share the Game.
Visit our website to get started!
Cheering from home – but still want to help out? Make an online donation: www.ussoccerfoundation.org/donate
***
Plus, you can check out my latest "State of the States" column over at Albion Road.
Thoughts on USA v. Australia
There's little doubt how Bob's going to play this World Cup, is there? Two holders in central midfield, limited forays from the fullbacks, and counter, counter, counter till it hurts...
Worshipping at the Church of Mourinho
Of course, the glass-half-full crowd will point to the number of opportunities the US created on those counters. There were certainly chances aplenty, though for every slick transition and lightning dash forward, there were attacks fizzling out through poor touches, the lack of a final ball, or the inability to apply the finish. But pointing to those chances alone ignores what was going on at the other end of the pitch.
What made Mourinho's Inter so successful at surrendering the possession battle this year was that they choked off chances for the opposition. They didn't care if you had the ball; they just made sure there wasn't anything productive you could do with it. Despite the increasing frequency of chances on the break for the US, there were simply way too many free bodies in yellow in the box. If Kennedy can finish or Hahnemann is less sharp in net in the second half, we're looking at a less rosy scoreline.
Choose Your Weapons
But you could point that self-same "failure to finish" finger at the US, Findley in particular. Which raises a bit of a conundrum for Bradley. There's no doubt that Findley's speed caused problems and created chances. Where he fell short was that he's just not as quick with the ball at his feet and, more importantly, he didn't finish the two glorious chances presented to him.
By contrast, both Gomez and Buddle showed how deadly a striker in form can be. They're both riding their confidence at the moment, but neither fits Bob's system as a speedy foil for Altidore up top. So do you go with the hot boot or stick rigidly to your system? I don't think you need a ouija board to know what Bob's answer to that question is going to be.
Closing Thoughts
I'm not enamored of living on the counter, particularly against teams that we hold a technical advantage over, and I'm still hugely worried about the gaps in the back line. But it's encouraging that the US managed a solid result despite playing without a couple of key cogs (Altidore and Onyewu as a sub) and not looking at their sharpest. The size and quality of the pitch (not to mention some questionable officiating) didn't help matters.
Where I'm starting to get a nervous itch is in how Bob approaches the second two matches of the group stage. Much depends on the result in the first match against England, but I do wonder about our ability to create chances from possession rather than on the break. The second half against Turkey showed some promise, but both goals were from restarts rather than sustained possession breaking down a packed defense. Sure, we can score on the counter, but do we really expect Slovenia and Algeria to be coming forward in numbers against us? Will Bob loosen the reins a bit?
We're not far away from finding out...
Worshipping at the Church of Mourinho
Of course, the glass-half-full crowd will point to the number of opportunities the US created on those counters. There were certainly chances aplenty, though for every slick transition and lightning dash forward, there were attacks fizzling out through poor touches, the lack of a final ball, or the inability to apply the finish. But pointing to those chances alone ignores what was going on at the other end of the pitch.
What made Mourinho's Inter so successful at surrendering the possession battle this year was that they choked off chances for the opposition. They didn't care if you had the ball; they just made sure there wasn't anything productive you could do with it. Despite the increasing frequency of chances on the break for the US, there were simply way too many free bodies in yellow in the box. If Kennedy can finish or Hahnemann is less sharp in net in the second half, we're looking at a less rosy scoreline.
Choose Your Weapons
But you could point that self-same "failure to finish" finger at the US, Findley in particular. Which raises a bit of a conundrum for Bradley. There's no doubt that Findley's speed caused problems and created chances. Where he fell short was that he's just not as quick with the ball at his feet and, more importantly, he didn't finish the two glorious chances presented to him.
By contrast, both Gomez and Buddle showed how deadly a striker in form can be. They're both riding their confidence at the moment, but neither fits Bob's system as a speedy foil for Altidore up top. So do you go with the hot boot or stick rigidly to your system? I don't think you need a ouija board to know what Bob's answer to that question is going to be.
Closing Thoughts
I'm not enamored of living on the counter, particularly against teams that we hold a technical advantage over, and I'm still hugely worried about the gaps in the back line. But it's encouraging that the US managed a solid result despite playing without a couple of key cogs (Altidore and Onyewu as a sub) and not looking at their sharpest. The size and quality of the pitch (not to mention some questionable officiating) didn't help matters.
Where I'm starting to get a nervous itch is in how Bob approaches the second two matches of the group stage. Much depends on the result in the first match against England, but I do wonder about our ability to create chances from possession rather than on the break. The second half against Turkey showed some promise, but both goals were from restarts rather than sustained possession breaking down a packed defense. Sure, we can score on the counter, but do we really expect Slovenia and Algeria to be coming forward in numbers against us? Will Bob loosen the reins a bit?
We're not far away from finding out...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)