OT: Boneyard "Other Football" World Cup Thread

[UConnDan97]

That team was loaded with players with extensive European experience, other than Reyna and O'Brien, you had guys like Tony Sanneh, Frankie Hejduk, Greg Berhalter, and Joe Max-Moore among others.

That's true, although I never thought much of Joe Max-Moore (even as a Revs fan), and Hejduk was just serviceable at best. However, McBride was the real deal (he had experience at Wolfsburg and Preston North End prior to that moment, which ended up launching his Fulham career and the Fulham-American Pipeline)...

 

[Gurleyman]

Thanks for the replay. I was at that game. After that one, the Germans became high on Donovan yet again, really after that one run. Well, you know the rest of the story, and that was 12 years ago.

And we also know his loans to Everton were quite successful and they wanted him back until the Galaxy said no. There's a man of the match effort in a 2-1 win against Chelsea that springs to mind. Everton fans voted him their Player of the Month (although some of that I'm sure Was due to "shiny new toy" syndrome).

I really don't care what went wrong in his attempts to play with Leverkusen, other than in the vague sense of the USA's reputation. Boris Diaw was a waste of space in Charlotte with Kemba, and then was a vital part of the Spurs this year. Stuff happens when you don't end up in the right fit (and nobody would call Diaw one of the greatest basketball players in the world either - so the parallel is reasonable). But I did care when World Cup pressure was on and Michael Bradley kicked a free kick 10 yards over everyone's head and out of bounds in overtime against Belgium, and then hit his next one straight to the first defender. Or when Wondo missed the net by five feet and let a cross hit him in the shins. That's simply not good enough. Donovan is clearly past his prime and unless he had a pinpoint set piece or cross on someone's head, I don't think he would have made a difference this year (only Pirlo was really still an impact front six player in this WC older than 32 - the rest like Klose, Essien and Drogba had reduced roles and looked their age). But nobody came along to fill the Landycakes role for us, and we had to rely on a team of plow horses. Our talent/skill drop off was significant in this cycle. Jermaine Jones was everyone's pick for our best field player, and he has anvils for cleats - zero touch, but works hard and obviously can put a good strike on a ball if given a chance. I think Yedlin will get there - he showed great ability to take people on, but isn't there with his technical skill on crosses yet. Will be interesting to see if he returns to RB for us or if maybe they move him up higher permanently, although that may depend on who else we can develop up front.

 

[UConnDan97]

And we also know his loans to Everton were quite successful and they wanted him back until the Galaxy said no. There's a man of the match effort in a 2-1 win against Chelsea that springs to mind. Everton fans voted him their Player of the Month (although some of that I'm sure Was due to "shiny new toy" syndrome).

I really don't care what went wrong in his attempts to play with Leverkusen, other than in the vague sense of the USA's reputation. Boris Diaw was a waste of space in Charlotte with Kemba, and then was a vital part of the Spurs this year. Stuff happens when you don't end up in the right fit (and nobody would call Diaw one of the greatest basketball players in the world either - so the parallel is reasonable). But I did care when World Cup pressure was on and Michael Bradley kicked a free kick 10 yards over everyone's head and out of bounds in overtime against Belgium, and then hit his next one straight to the first defender. Or when Wondo missed the net by five feet and let a cross hit him in the shins. That's simply not good enough. Donovan is clearly past his prime and unless he had a pinpoint set piece or cross on someone's head, I don't think he would have made a difference this year (only Pirlo was really still an impact front six player in this WC older than 32 - the rest like Klose, Essien and Drogba had reduced roles and looked their age). But nobody came along to fill the Landycakes role for us, and we had to rely on a team of plow horses. Our talent/skill drop off was significant in this cycle. Jermaine Jones was everyone's pick for our best field player, and he has anvils for cleats - zero touch, but works hard and obviously can put a good strike on a ball if given a chance. I think Yedlin will get there - he showed great ability to take people on, but isn't there with his technical skill on crosses yet. Will be interesting to see if he returns to RB for us or if maybe they move him up higher permanently, although that may depend on who else we can develop up front.

Solid post. I really like the "anvils for cleats" line. It's the love-hate relationship that I have with Jones also. Great defender, but below average passer. If the USA doesn't begin to develop the creative passing midfielder, then we should get used to the round of 16 or the quarters, because that's as far as we can get on just out-working other teams...

 

[Gurleyman]

Solid post. I really like the "anvils for cleats" line. It's the love-hate relationship that I have with Jones also. Great defender, but below average passer. If the USA doesn't begin to develop the creative passing midfielder, then we should get used to the round of 16 or the quarters, because that's as far as we can get on just out-working other teams...

That was one of my Monday morning quarterbacking problems with our Belgium tactics. We put Cameron in the midfield in a defensive role, which slid more possession/distribution responsibilities onto Jones and he really struggled (his worst game of the four). We already had Dempsey struggling out of position as a target and Bradley struggling out of position as a CAM. And then Zusi playing more centrally rendered him useless. We had basically our entire front six playing out of their natural element. Altidore's injury was a big part of that, of course, starting a negative domino effect. I think Portugal's patchwork defense (with no LB) masked our deficiencies temporarily. But not sure there was much we could have done with our scotch tape and glue lineup at that point.

 

[Waquoit]

Our "Belgium tactics" put us in a position to win in regulation as big underdogs.

 

[Gurleyman]

Our "Belgium tactics" put us in a position to win in regulation as big underdogs.

I'm unfamiliar with that nickname for Tim Howard.

 

[SAMCRO]

Our "Belgium tactics" put us in a position to win in regulation as big underdogs.

People seem to forget that. We were way overmatched by Belgium. Not even close from a talent perspective, and still had a point blank shot to win in the final second of regulation. The tactics were spot on. The US didn't finish when given the chance.

 

[SubbaBub]

Belgium was a disaster tactically. Unless your plan was to hope for the greatest goal keeping performance in the history of the World Cup, then it worked perfectly.

 

[UConnDan97]

Belgium was a disaster tactically. Unless your plan was to hope for the greatest goal keeping performance in the history of the World Cup, then it worked perfectly.

Exactly. The idea that there are those on this board that don't understand that fact is almost comical. It was a record-breaking performance by Tim Howard.

And for those who thought that it was due to Belgium's overwhelming superiority, keep in mind that they were only able to muster 4 shots on goal against Argentina. Yup. 4 shots...

 

[whaler11]

Belgium was a disaster tactically. Unless your plan was to hope for the greatest goal keeping performance in the history of the World Cup, then it worked perfectly.

Come on nothing special from Howard that day, just doing his job.

 

[UConnDan97]

Come on nothing special from Howard that day, just doing his job.

I see what you did there...

 

[Gurleyman]

People seem to forget that. We were way overmatched by Belgium. Not even close from a talent perspective, and still had a point blank shot to win in the final second of regulation. The tactics were spot on. The US didn't finish when given the chance.

We didn't bunker and play for one chance. If we did, I'd be ok with it. People would be debating whether that was a good thing for US Soccer, but it. In knockout stages you try to win, and if we didn't have enough offensive punch to play an open game, you do what you gotta do. We didn't do that though - we tried to attack with defensive players in offensive roles, often going with three in the back to play Johnson (and then Yedlin) forward with Zusi moving central, and opened up a red carpet into our penalty area as they ran through the gaps. Howard stopped them a bunch of times on clean looks inside the box. We got no offensive boost from taking ourselves out of the defensive alignment we'd played in the group stage. It took us into stoppage time before we had one chance (not counting a couple weak hits from Dempsey outside the box) while our goalie was on his way to the highest save total since 1966. I don't think another keeper in this entire World Cup has had more than eight. When we went to OT2 down 2-0, shots were 36-9, corners were 19-4 and quality chances were 14-1. That's a tactical whooping - you could maybe disregard the numbers if most of the 36 shots were 20 yards and out and we were keeping numbers behind the ball, but that wasn't how most of them happened.

We did fight in OT2 and get a few quality chances to make the final stats look marginally better. But 38 shots is what you'd expect from a hockey game. We only allowed 14 to the best international team assembled in this generation at the peak of their dominance (resulting in 6 Howard saves, 3 of which were after we went ahead 2-0 - a fluky final score, but a strong tactical performance even if we lost). This Belgium team, while talented, was rendered impotent by Argentina (a one save shutout).

I'm not mad at JK or anything - we didn't have much to work with, he took a gamble on moving some pieces around, and we just didn't play well (on either end of the field). It happens. Not the first time or last time the chalk strategy didn't play out as hoped on grass, and then Johnson going down and needing to come off prevented JK from making an adjustment as soon as I'm sure he would have liked to, tying another hand behind his back. I don't think there was a winning formula - i just haven't seen us forced to rely on our keeper that significantly since Keller beat Brazil. Overall, I think it was a clear success getting into the knockout stage with a patchwork offensive lineup sans Altidore - we effectively took advantage of Portugal's weaknesses in the back and played the conservative game we needed to against Germany. We just looked like we didn't belong on the field with Belgium and it's been a long time since I've felt that way in a non-friendly (the Czech game in 2006 felt a little like that, and a 4-2 loss to Mexico around when we gave up on Bob Bradley was a game that felt terrible - like they'd totally passed us by and would dominate us for a generation). JK turned that around and I am 100 percent behind him coaching until 2018.

 

[Gurleyman]

Exactly. The idea that there are those on this board that don't understand that fact is almost comical. It was a record-breaking performance by Tim Howard. And for those who thought that it was due to Belgium's overwhelming superiority, keep in mind that they were only able to muster 4 shots on goal against Argentina. Yup. 4 shots...

And three were blocked - only one needed to be saved (middle of first half). Argentina went through a stretch of 40+ minutes without surrendering a single shot to Belgium - blocked, wide or otherwise,

The Belgium highlights on the game recap were basically that one shot and Lukaku trying to cross a ball deep in the box and having it deflected. That was it.

 

[SAMCRO]

Belgium was that much better than the US. Howard played out of his tits, but pressingta

Exactly. The idea that there are those on this board that don't understand that fact is almost comical. It was a record-breaking performance by Tim Howard.

And for those who thought that it was due to Belgium's overwhelming superiority, keep in mind that they were only able to muster 4 shots on goal against Argentina. Yup. 4 shots...

Tactics were not the issue w/ Belgium. Talent was the issue. They were much better at every position, save one. Awful matchup for the US. But I'm sure if LD10 was on the roster all would have been saved.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Belgium was a disaster tactically. Unless your plan was to hope for the greatest goal keeping performance in the history of the World Cup, then it worked perfectly.

With an 'average' World Cup keeper, Wondo makes that shot and the US loses 4 to 1. With a UK World Cup keeper, Wondo makes that shot and no one is there to see it because the fans left at halftime and the officials turned-off the lights with 15 minutes left in the game

 

[BlueMAB]

Nice straw man.

I think our back line as a unit is more talented than Belgium's and Courtois is better than Howard, he just didn't have to show it because we couldn't maintain possession.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Belgium was that much better than the US. Howard played out of his tits, but pressingta

Tactics were not the issue w/ Belgium. Talent was the issue. They were much better at every position, save one. Awful matchup for the US. But I'm sure if LD10 was on the roster all would have been saved.

The US tactic against Belgium was to pray for Tim Howard to get bitten by a radioactive spider before the start of the match and then hope that Belgium exhausts itself after playing offense for 80+ minutes. At that point, sneak a goal in at the last second. It almost worked.

 

[UConnDan97]

Belgium was that much better than the US. Howard played out of his tits, but pressingta

Tactics were not the issue w/ Belgium. Talent was the issue. They were much better at every position, save one. Awful matchup for the US. But I'm sure if LD10 was on the roster all would have been saved.

Yup. That's exactly what I said, right? That it would have been okay if Donovan was there, right? Ridiculous.

Give me a break! The problem here is that you, and a couple of others, think that Belgium was an awful matchup for the USA. That's the real issue here! You want to know what would have been a worse matchup for us?

Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Holland, France, Colombia, and Chile. And that's not an exaggeration. Of the 15 teams, almost half of them would have been worse for us. Was Belgium better than us? Sure, no doubt about it. But the idea that we caught some sort of unlucky break to get Belgium is preposterous! And if you needed any more proof of that, look at the game that Belgium played against Argentina, where they were all but shut down for the full 90. The bottom line is that there were things that probably could have been done to make the USA-Belgium game tighter in the middle and more organized in the back. We didn't do those things. The fact that we still had a chance at the end is only through the good graces of Tim Howard. Period.

 

[Gurleyman]

Belgium was that much better than the US. Howard played out of his tits, but pressingta Tactics were not the issue w/ Belgium. Talent was the issue. They were much better at every position, save one. Awful matchup for the US. But I'm sure if LD10 was on the roster all would have been saved.

Russia - a team no more talented than us - outshot Belgium 13-11. Russia's keeper made one save before Belgium scored in the 88th minute to win 1-0. Argentina's keeper made one save to shut them out. It was only against us that they looked like a steamroller vs. dandelions.

Again, We played Spain at their peak between Euro and WC titles and were clearly fortunate to win that game with the help of a couple of their defensive errors. We were far less talented, but played a good tactical game limiting their chances and generating a couple of our own, and that would have been true even if we lost. I would expect to see 38 shots and 16 saves in a 1-16 mismatch in the opening round of the NCAA Women's Tournament. Not in a World Cup.

 

[SAMCRO]

Yup. That's exactly what I said, right? That it would have been okay if Donovan was there, right? Ridiculous.

Give me a break! The problem here is that you, and a couple of others, think that Belgium was an awful matchup for the USA. That's the real issue here! You want to know what would have been a worse matchup for us?

Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Holland, France, Colombia, and Chile. And that's not an exaggeration. Of the 15 teams, almost half of them would have been worse for us. Was Belgium better than us? Sure, no doubt about it. But the idea that we caught some sort of unlucky break to get Belgium is preposterous! And if you needed any more proof of that, look at the game that Belgium played against Argentina, where they were all but shut down for the full 90. The bottom line is that there were things that probably could have been done to make the USA-Belgium game tighter in the middle and more organized in the back. We didn't do those things. The fact that we still had a chance at the end is only through the good graces of Tim Howard. Period.

I agree with you, those all would have been bad match ups for the US. People are taking for granted that it was a big deal for this team (this group of 23) to get out of their group. Bradley was off his game, the team was inconsistent, and the US was grossly outmatched at every spot v Belgium. Another element was fatigue. US had travelled all over Brazil playing their games, travelling (I think I heard this, that the US travelled furthest distance of any team through the group stages). Belgium's longest distance travelled to a game was a 45 minute flight, one time. They were undoubtedly fresher, which was a double wammy for the US. That is a big advantage as well, especially at that stage. IMO the US was grossly outmatched on this night in all the field positions, and it was not so much of a tactical issue. The US couldn't keep possession, and were completely out classed on the field. It's okay to agree to disagree on this.

 

[FrostyNuggets]

GK will, on most occasions, be an advantage for us. We lose 3-1 to South Korea in 2002 and do not get to the knockout stage without exceptional goalkeeping. No shame in that.

 

[SubbaBub]

Belgium was a little better than a coin flip in their favor. They should not have dominated the way they did. There were shortcomings in both individual and team play. If you believe JK, the team wasn't playing as instructed.

My eyeballs tell me there was a whole lot of not ready for prime time wearing US shirts, by some guys who were receiving what in my view is some undue praise.

These guys acquitted themselves on the stage, everyone else not so much.

Beasley
Johnson
Howard
Yedlin
Jones

I'm being deliberately harsh, because it was there to be had. Green is left off based on sample size however glorious that sample was. Brooks, too.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Belgium was a little better than a coin flip in their favor. They should not have dominated the way they did. There were shortcomings in both individual and team play. If you believe JK, the team wasn't playing as instructed.

My eyeballs tell me there was a whole lot of not ready for prime time wearing US shirts, by some guys who were receiving what in my view is some undue praise.

These guys acquitted themselves on the stage, everyone else not so much.

Beasley
Johnson
Howard
Yedlin
Jones

I'm being deliberately harsh, because it was there to be had. Green is left off based on sample size however glorious that sample was. Brooks, too.

I would argue that Dempsey should be in the mix, too, as he played well, just out of position and on an island for the most part. He did the most with what he had all while breathing through a bested nose. Beckerman did what was asked of him in the 2 games he played. Gonzalez had some blame with the Portugal goal; but, played much better against Germany and did OK with Belgium.

 

[SubbaBub]

I would argue that Dempsey should be in the mix, too, as he played well, just out of position and on an island for the most part. He did the most with what he had all while breathing through a bested nose. Beckerman did what was asked of him in the 2 games he played. Gonzalez had some blame with the Portugal goal; but, played much better against Germany and did OK with Belgium.

He did what he could, but outside of the opening minute of Ghana, he wasn't very effective. He had a couple chances against Germany and Belgium where his selfishness or lack of trust in others cost the team. Dempsey at the world class level is akin to Wondo at the US national level. Ultimately a poacher with a more few tricks. His best move is arriving on the end of crosses or rebounds.

It's hard to pick out individual center backs when the group's play was so bad. I don't know who was responsible for pushing the line higher or keeping everyone connected. The offside line was often ragged and always gave up too much space to the ball. About the only things they did well were recover and defend in the air. I'm beginning to think the PK'S given in the send off series spooked them against getting beat off the dribble.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Another element was fatigue. US had travelled all over Brazil playing their games, travelling (I think I heard this, that the US travelled furthest distance of any team through the group stages). Belgium's longest distance travelled to a game was a 45 minute flight, one time. They were undoubtedly fresher, which was a double wammy for the US. That is a big advantage as well, especially at that stage.

I saw a report after the US picked Sao Paolo as their base camp (I believe it was a mistake to take the ‘best’ facility available over a more central location, even if US soccer did not have the money to build its own resort like Germany did) that the US racked-up the most miles in the Round Robin - 8,866. Mexico was second most with just under 8,500 miles.

When the World Cup draw was made, I distinctly remember Klinsmann being more concerned over travel and having to play a game in Manaus than the Group of Death, which most felt that the US would be stuck with even before the draw. Looks like he had every right to be concerned.

• The 4 semifinalists rank in terms of fewest miles traveled out of 32 teams - #3 Argentina, #4 Germany, #16 Netherlands, #20 Brazil
• Of the 8 teams that played in Manaus, only 2 (Switzerland, USA) advanced to the Round of 16 with Cameroon, Croatia, England, Honduras, Italy, and Portugal all washing out.

Looking forward, what are the odds that the US, assuming the US qualifies, gets stuck playing a match in the 2018 World Cup in Russia in this lovely location? Maybe Costa Rica will get invited along for the ride just to relive the blizzard game.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/2018-world-cup-will-have-its-own-extreme-site-234853806.html