"That position [central defender], it is quite amazing how deep we are there. The guys that are set there are Carlos Bocanegra and Oguchi Onyewu, and we are building challenges behind that with Michael Orozco, Clarence Goodson, Tim Ream, George John."
Los Eternos Rivales, eh?
It certainly started to look like it after about 30 minutes when the Mexico we’ve come to know and love started asserting is prickish best after looking in a different class for the first half hour. It’s been weird lately, watching Mexico play within themselves, so it came as something of a relief when their true colors started bleeding through. Not that they didn’t “win” the match before the waves of subs threw entropy into the mix, but this outing, as the scoreline indicated, presented a US that’s at least in the same neighborhood as our neighbors to the south.
Talking points?
Collective intelligence. The difference between the first XI’s seemed to me to be Mexico’s collective effort and intelligence both with and without the ball. Without, they pressed as a unit, rarely allowing exploitable gaps and tilting the field in their favor. With the ball, they moved for each other, always with runners ahead of the ball looking to shoot the gaps. By contrast, what little pressing the US enacted looked disjointed and ineffective, and far too often the only play with the ball was lateral or backwards. This changed as the US rode the emotional crest in the broken half-hour toward the end, with more willing runners getting after Mexico in possession and creating transition opportunities.
#10? First half I would have said of Donovan: “useful, but not the presence he should be unless cutting inside.” Early in the second I would have said, “flicks and tricks, poor decisions, cough, cough, ugh.” But the move to the middle with three young guys eating up ground around him in attack made him look a completely different player. Might it happen that he’s ready to be the #10 advertised on his jersey for the US? He certainly looked more effective and involved in the middle, with the added bonus of being willing to take on defenders1. If there’s a perfect spot for him going forward as he pushes past 30, you’d think it would be there. Donovan underneath Agudelo or Altidore with Shea and Dempsey wide?
Latinferno? I’m struggling to find an equivalent to “youthquake” in response to Klinsmann’s stated goal of incorporating more latino players, so we’ll go with “latinferno” for now. Evaluation? Not terrible, but not great. Orozco didn’t look like he’d be higher than 4th in a pretty weak center-back corps, and Castillo looked like Bornstein with slightly better touch. I wouldn’t dismiss either entirely, but nor would I be looking at them as starters. Torres, on the other hand, I’ve always been fond of, and he certainly had his moments, though I think he’s largely wasted out wide. I’d like to see him paired with a destroyer in central midfield behind Donovan2, though I’d also like to see Holden here when he returns.
Emotional response. That certainly was a spirited close to affairs, wasn’t it? Forget for a moment that the numerous subs made things a bit chaotic. I think what the take-away should be is that Klinsmann, for all my other suspicions about his qualities as a head-man, can be an emotional leader/catalyst in ways that Bob Bradley could never hope to be. It’s funny, isn’t it? For so long there have been calls for a high-level Euro or Latin boss who could get the best out of the US tactically with the hard work and energy being some native birthright of the players. But here comes a Euro-boss, and a German one to boot, that brings more energy, enthusiasm, and inspiration than tactical nous. That said, one game does not a trend make…
Quick hits?
Torrado should have walked for dragging down Rogers. Not that it would have made a difference with only a few minutes left, but seeing he and Marquez getting frustrated/animated was a pleasant change.
Buddle and Beckerman can safely return to the shallow end of the player pool. I’d send Orozco there as well and Castillo were it not for (a) the complete lack of left backs and (b) the depth issues at the back.
Having found Castillo wanting, it’s interesting as I think back that there were only a couple of decent Mexican moves coming down their right flank, a flank patrolled in turns by two players that gave us major troubles in the Gold Cup. Hmmm.
In the end, I think the biggest take-away message isn’t the formation shift3. Nor is it the Latin Invasion or giving young MLS wingers a chance. All of those have their role to play going forward, but what felt different was the shift in attitude. The starters seemed at first a little bit in awe of their opponents, perhaps still reeling from the Gold Cup final and lacking in confidence. But that changed as the game progressed, and all hell broke loose when Klinsmann unleashed the young guns up top and went with only one holding mid in the middle rather than three.
Not that I’m ready to declare a new dawn by any stretch of the imagination, but there’s certainly a slight lifting of this summer’s gloom. Costa Rica next month is probably too soon for Holden to be fully back in the mix, but I’d like to see…
Agudelo/Altidore up top. Donovan underneath with Shea and Dempsey out wide and a sub’s role for Adu. Bradley and Torres/Holden deeper in midfield. Castillo/Lichaj at left back, Cherundolo/Chandler on the right. Bocanegra and whoever is showing best of Ream/Gooch/Orozco/Goodson in the middle. Howard in net.
And you?
Something loyal readers know has always been a bugaboo of mine when it comes to Donovan. ↩
I assume, of course, that Klinsmann doesn’t intend to persist with three holding/defensive mids in the middle going forward. If the last twenty minutes or so showed him nothing, I hope he saw that. ↩
Though it might be in the longer term. ↩
I watched quite a bit of soccer over Father’s Day weekend and was pleased to see the two teams I follow most closely get results. Sadly however, I’m left with a sour taste in my mouth and very little time to do full reaction posts. Instead, I’ll slam a couple together and bind them with the one central theme that dominated the two most important matches (to me, anyway). I suppose you know what’s coming from the title of this post…
On balance, United probably just about deserved a point away to RSL. They were on top in the opening stages and large portions of the second half, maintaining possession without looking particularly lethal. But the same charge of impotence could be leveled at RSL when they were in the ascendency, which was a welcome change after shipping four last week. On the other end, Pontius hit the bar twice and the tale of the stats makes for pretty level reading.
But the Davies plunge over Chris Wingert’s leg?
Shameful. I mean, I know that strikers are paid to get goals, that skirting the bounds of the rules is accepted practice in the game, and that the results-first, by fair means or foul mentality is the dominant one.
Doesn’t make it any more palatable.
I understand it’s part of the game, but it’s not a part I’m fond of. I’ll take the point and appreciate Charlie’s general hustle in pursuit of lost causes as well as the PK finish, but that doesn’t mean I have to feel good about it, particularly since this isn’t his first such incident.
Some other quick points…
It shows that United have been devoting time to set pieces on both ends. Not sexy or glamorous by any stretch, but an edge that middle of the pack scrappers need in the pursuit of points.
Gratified to see that United didn’t bunker on the road after grabbing the equalizer1. They had chances down the stretch to take all three points.
The back line is young and often positionally suspect, but I think they’re being unnecessarily exposed by a lack of midfield bite in front of them.
Vaughn bites both ways. I thought the RSL PK was correct (stupid place for Simms to be diving into a tackle anyway), but Jean Alexander probably could have been dealt red for leaving the boot in on Zayner. Did Vaughn even whistle that as a foul?
On the national-team front, the US eased past Jamaica and (going on the evidence of the laughable El Salvador v. Panama simulation-fest quarterfinal2) shouldn’t have many issues getting to the final. The performance was better, particularly considering that Donovan didn’t start3 and Altidore limped off after 10 minutes. But, once again, my focus is inexorably drawn to a dive.
Jermaine Jones.
It’s no secret that I’ve been less than thrilled with his outings for the US, reserving special attention for his decision-making. I flirted briefly with appreciating his qualities earlier in the tournament, only to have that appreciation wiped out by subsequent performances. So how then to deal with what was largely an impressive outing where he scored the game winner and sold the red card that saw Jamaica reduced to ten men?
I’m not going to argue that he wasn’t good. Once freed to get forward more (when he and Bradley Jr. figured out they both didn’t have to sit deep as there was no Jamaican midfield presence high and central), he made several bursting runs through the middle and generally looked better by comparison with Bradley Jr., who had an off game passing-wise. These good points were capped by a deflected drive that put the US up 1-0.
But I can’t shake the questions. What the hell was he thinking when he petulantly swiped a Jamaican’s legs to earn his yellow? Worse, imagine if El Vampiro Mexicano had seen that no contact was made on the burst through the middle that ended with him flailing his arms and flopping like a mystery sniper hidden amongst the blue-clad Salvadoran legions had just put a round in his back. Second yellow. The US down to ten. And that’s even ignoring the fact that he was moving clear of the last defender with about 3-4 teammates following his rush towards the Jamaican net.
Decision-making. And I’m still not a fan.
Other quick points…
I generally like, given the roster strengths and weaknesses, starting a five-man midfield with two holders and adjusting as the game progresses, but Kljestan playing the central role has limitations. His first look was consistently back and he carries little threat on the dribble or shooting from distance. I’d like to see Dempsey in that role, getting after defenders, sucking up midfield attention, with the hard-running Bedoya and Donovan exploiting the flanks.
Another poor start with an early goal nearly shipped and Howard to thank for saving the collective bacon. Hmmm.
Defense has been much better since Boca moved to the middle. Still, an abiding image I’ll have is two US players challenging for a ball in the air to, of all people, Dane Richards, missing their headers, and letting the ball drop behind them to the minuscule Richards. Poor.
Took a while to kill the game against ten, which wouldn’t be a problem except that a frustrated and disorganized Jamaica created some danger in that same time period.
Better stuff from both sides, even if the performances were tainted by chicanery. D.C. United continues to make the case for me to buy BackToTheMean.com, while the US had arguably their strongest performance since the second half of the 1-1 draw with Argentina. Am I yet holding out hope for a United playoff spot or US cup win? Tough to be positive in either case, but neither cause is dead yet, so that’s something.
Right?
Sigh.
Good thing too. With a lightweight middle of Dax + Fred, sitting back would have been a disaster. ↩
And that center linesman only added to the farce by making some of the other CONCACAF clowns look downright professional by comparison. ↩
Didn’t I mention last time we danced this dance that playing well without Donovan should be a priority? ↩
So which was more shocking for you: Clint Dempsey’s menagerie of missed sitters or Bob Bradley finishing the game with Dempsey as his lone striker? It’s not an idle question. My notes, even from early in the first half, mention Dempsey looking heavy-legged and lacking his usual spark. I think it was about a half hour in that I wondered why Bradley hadn’t started the energetic Bedoya, saving Dempsey, coming off a long club season, for emergency sub duty and the latter stages of the tournament.
Lest the argument be raised about the importance of the game to advancing in said tournament and the necessity of playing your experienced, reliable players, I submit the inclusion of Wondolowski and Lichaj1. Those exceptions aside2, might we be seeing signs of the “devil you know” rot that set in during the later stages of the Arena era, the entitlement years?
Let’s adress that and other questions in the talking points…
The difference between the US and those who’ve been posting massive goal tallies in this tournament? Easy. Finishing. Altidore’s marvelous thunderbolt aside, the US should have had at least four, possible as many as six or seven more. That said, not all of those were flubbed finishes; there were a few decent saves mixed in when the US managed to get shots on target. Despite the often disjointed build-up, lack of sharpness on the ball, and failure to exploit free kicks, the US still could have made it to the far side of five. Of course, Guadaloupe isn’t the best measuring stick, but then, some of these massive goal hauls elsewhere have been against similar opposition.
Following on from that point, and, far be it from me to be optimistic, but I sense a familiar pattern. Logically, from what we’ve seen thus far in the Gold Cup, it wouldn’t make much sense to have cause for hope, but isn’t this the sort of tournament we’ve seen before? The US labors mightily, particularly against minnows, while their rivals cruise to gaudy victories, only for the plodding tortoise that is the USMNT to find their tortured way through. Which would be an almighty shame if it happened because then there’s no impetus to change: be it player selection, tactics, or, ultimately, the man responsible for both.
To lighten the mood for a moment, I was happy to see the change that introduced Lichaj in place of Bocanegra on the left flank. As I said in previous reaction posts, I have no problem with Boca at left back when we’re playing superior or roughly equal opposition. In those cases, emphasizing defense or limiting the back line to one fullback who gets forward often would seem to be a sound (if somewhat faint-hearted) tactical choice. But I couldn’t for the life of me understand why Bradley felt the need to use Boca at left back against Canada and Panama. Those are teams we should be looking to dominate, to exploit for width. Exactly as Lichaj did in this match.
On a related note, should we be worried that the greater threat down the flanks were often Lichaj and Cherundolo rather than Dempsey or Donovan, the presumptive wingers? Whether Bradley dictated their pinching in or whether they did it on their own, the fact remains that we get very little width from either3. For Dempsey I can understand this. He’s better pinching in. I suppose Donovan could be if he’d use more of that heralded vision and pace to get after players and slot balls through. Instead, we get another tepid performance in a match where we need the veteran, the supposed best player on the team, to stand up and take charge4. And those set pieces? My kingdom for a Holden!
Let me close with two moments that I think might go somewhat ignored in the larger frustration of Dempsey’s missed chances. Those were were certainly moments upon which the game hung, but these other two could potentially have been larger factors.
The first was yet another stupid, lazy foul by Jermaine Jones that set up an early free kick chance for Guadaloupe that almost morphed into a disastrous start when the corner that followed was pinged off the bar. Despite one fantastic ball to open a sequence that Dempsey ultimately flubbed, I again had the same frustrations I’ve been harping on incessantly when it comes to Jones. He’s a quality player, but I wonder about the commitment and resulting poor decision-making.
The second was Goodson bumping a Guadaloupe striker who would have been in alone on goal early in the match. The referee chose, probably correctly, to wave play on, but I can easily (particularly in a World Cup qualifier away) see that getting called the other way. Red card and 80 or so minutes of playing a man down in a match you need a result from? Not good.
Neither of these events cost us the match, but both could have proved as instrumental, if not more so, than poor finishing. So perhaps there’s a case to be made here that the undoing of this team may be as tied to decision-making without the ball as it is to failing to get it in the net. We shall see…
And, to a lesser extent, Goodson, though he’s more experienced and presumably farther up the pecking order. ↩
Noting, of course, that Lichaj and Wondo were effectively swapped in for the equally inexperienced Ream and Agudelo, so they are perhaps not “exceptions” per se. ↩
Which is one of the primary reasons why I’ve been advocating for attacking fullbacks. ↩
Note that I’m not advocating dropping Donovan, just considering him more of a complementary, rather than cornerstone, type of player. Less a general than a sniper. Time to move past the time where he’s considered essential to the team performing well. ↩
England on Saturday, June 12th
Slovenia on Friday, June 18th (big gap to rest up after the opener!)
Algeria on Wednesday, June 23rd
Alas, poor Hejduk! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite
step-overs, of most abysmal crossing. He hath lunged in like a hack a
thousand times, and now how abhorr'd in my imagination it is!
My gorge rises at it.
O, woe is me,Ugh.
To have seen what I have seen, see what I see!
Remember, the wild card is sole team owner Will Chang. He’s the one with the big wallet, so he has the final say, but it’s difficult to know who has his ear. Is it Payne? Is it someone else? It will be interesting to see.Oops. Sorry, it's me. Got it in a box under my bed. You want it back, Will? Well, you know the next step. It starts with "Fire" and ends with "Soehn"...and perhaps "Kasper"...and increasingly (given his recent form) "Payne." How is this still an issue?
