Huge game tonight at Azteca in Mexico City. I expect the filthy el tri to try to manhandle Pulicic tonight and play dirty as usual. Flopping, flipping, floundering all over the field. The fans will undoubtedly be acting like dumpster trash and shouting their puto chant like the mouthbreathers they are. I'm also expecting a loss unfortunately. A tie/result would be unreal. Mexico has been playing really really well.
I hate red cards, but it was bush league that Mexico didn't get even a yellow in the first few minutes.
Pulisic may not have lit up the stat sheet, but he had a few plays and moments that show that his instincts are off the charts compared to typical American players.
I also liked some of the things i saw from Bobby Wood. Strong kid, but it didn't seem like we were aggressive enough on the flanks for him to utilize his holding play.
Crispino : 9:05 am : link : reply
inferior to the top teams? The Mexicans, like most good teams, put on a display of ball movement against us. They play in control and seem to have as much possession as they like. We play dump and chase and turn the ball over after two or three touches. We always look like the inferior side against quality opposition. The women's team has reached elite levels. Why can't the men's team?
In the past couple of World Cups (as well as qualifying), we've dictated the pace and style of play in many games, and we've used the tactic to counter-attack against some of the more aggressive sides.
The question on why we aren't elite yet is a different one. We are firmly in the vast middle of countries in terms of skill, and although we have a lot of youth participating in soccer, we still don't have the strong youth academies other places do. For an American athlete, they have a ton of sport choices growing up. For the average South American or African (and even most Europeans), they have pretty much one outlet for sport - soccer. Kids grow up kicking a ball, passing a ball, learning skill with the ball.
But even going back to your original observation - you shouldn't use last night as being indicative of the US style of play. Winning at Azteca is extremely difficult. We've only come away with points a few times there. Playing for a tie and staying in the top 3 of the group was the main objective, especially when Mexico equalized.
CONCACAF is a marathon survived by playing on subpar fields, facing biased officiating and facing unruly and sometimes dangerous fans.
I'm not sure if you mean tactically inferior or technically inferior?
Tactically we were in full control of that game. Mexico registered one shot on goal all evening. The US had more.
Technically, Mexico has the edge, but not by a whole lot. They have better attacking players, but the US has the edge in both midfield and defense imo.
LB is as strong as it's been with Villafana, Johnson, Beasley as a trio.
Cameron, Brooks, Gonzalez, Ream are all playing at a high level in top leagues.
Yedlin had a great game yesterday imo. He had a really tough assignment going up against Lozano, who is about to be Man City bound, and more than held his own. Lozano was frustrated by the end, plain and simple. There's a reason Mexico moved him to the other side against Beasley.
In CM, Bradley is finally back to playing the position he should be at, and Acosta is the future. He put in a fantastic two way performance yesterday. Depth here is a concern though.
Then you have depth up front with Nagbe, Pulisic, Johnson, Arriola out wide and Altidore (who has been the best he's ever been imo) and Wood coming on strong.
The USMNT is in really good hands. You should feel confident in this team.
As much as some hate to see Americans leave for overseas professional leagues, until our youth system improves the best technical training is coming abroad and in many instances our younger players who do go to Europe are playing catch-up in terms of technical development. Americans going to Europe are far from polished products. Cannot fault MLS for this as much of the skills development has to occur before the age of 16, plus there is still no way that MLS can compete with European teams in terms of offering contracts to younger , unproven players.
Jon in NYC : 9:37 am : link : reply
team looks to be taking some heat on here, and I'm really not sure why.
LB is as strong as it's been with Villafana, Johnson, Beasley as a trio.
Cameron, Brooks, Gonzalez, Ream are all playing at a high level in top leagues.
Yedlin had a great game yesterday imo. He had a really tough assignment going up against Lozano, who is about to be Man City bound, and more than held his own. Lozano was frustrated by the end, plain and simple. There's a reason Mexico moved him to the other side against Beasley.
In CM, Bradley is finally back to playing the position he should be at, and Acosta is the future. He put in a fantastic two way performance yesterday. Depth here is a concern though.
Then you have depth up front with Nagbe, Pulisic, Johnson, Arriola out wide and Altidore (who has been the best he's ever been imo) and Wood coming on strong.
The USMNT is in really good hands. You should feel confident in this team.
Beasley is probably going to retire, but this is a solid assessment of the team.
We are in excellent hands and we seem to have gained an identity that we lacked under Klinsmann.
Our tactic last night was to counter-attack. Don't confuse that with being technically inferior.
You can look back at several matches where we do dictate the play. It depends on the opponent and what tactics give us the best chance to win.
But that's okay. When you're playing for a point at Azteca, you let Mexico pass the ball around the center circle as much as they'd like. If you re-watch the game, keep an eye on how Bradley and Acosta drop off and don't high press their midfielders until they've crossed the halfway mark. The kind of possession Mexico had doesn't hurt anyone.
Again, they had one shot on goal.
A lot of positives to take from this weekend
A lot of positives to take from this weekend
Bobby Wood had a tap in as well to make it 2-0, and he just swung and missed.
I'd give positive grades to Bradley, Cameron, Yedlin but I thought:
-Wood played hard but didn't do a thing that showed an iota of skill
-Resorting to Beasley was pathetic (old, lacks pace/size, no threat to do anything but desperate slide tackles)
-Gonzalez was good defensively but was awful on nearly every touch that wasn't a blasted clear
-Altidore is one lazy player; do we not have any strikers with skill/pace? Is the kid from Iceland out of the picture? Is Jordan Morris viewed as a good prospect?
Pep22 : 11:04 am : link : reply
considering Mexico controlled possession, owned the territorial battle and had more chances.
They had one shot on goal, a whiffed volley in the box and a free kick that hit the bar.
It isn't like they were giving an offensive onslaught like the Belgians and we simply survived.
His interference was what allowed Pulisic to get loose for the late attempt - the US's last chance to score.
If Wood makes any sort of contact on the sitter in the box, US either goes up 2 nil or at least avoids the counter. Instead he whiffs and Mexico goes off to the races.
My only complaint is if you are going to short corner 6 out of 7 times, there is no reason to bring forward all 3 center forwards. Allows for the counter (lucky Ochoa mishit a kick) when possession is lost.
Go Terps : 11:21 am : link : reply
yesterday was an excellent performance. They achieved exactly what they set out to.
That play was a combination of Beasley allowing space, the interior defense not collapsing quickly and Guzan taking too long to anticipate the shot and react. And it was a fantastic shot by Vela.
So why is that I'm getting the vibe people consider us to be a likely qualifier, even though from what it seems to me on paper is no more than a 60% chance (at best)?
Is it because whomever we'd play from Asia if we finish 4th would be very bad?
I thought the move to a 3-/5-man backline was very interesting, and the players really reacted well to it. That was the best game I've ever seen Cameron play for USMNT, and both Gonzalez and Ream (who has had some struggles with USMNT) played well. I also thought it was a better use of Yedlin, who is still frankly a brutally poor defender.
It's worth remembering that in 2014 the teams that played with a 3-/5-man back line performed well as some of the bigger countries had difficulty breaking it down. Costa Rica, Mexico, and Netherlands all did well with it. I don't know if it's the way to go exclusively but depending on our WC group (assuming we qualify) it would be a good thing to have in our pocket. If we end up grouped with a highly technical team like Spain, France, or Argentina it could be a great tool.
My question at this point is can the US do even better against Mexico despite its latest plan to drop back, defend and try to quickly counter?
So why is that I'm getting the vibe people consider us to be a likely qualifier, even though from what it seems to me on paper is no more than a 60% chance (at best)?
Is it because whomever we'd play from Asia if we finish 4th would be very bad?
No, not because of the Asia team, although if we have to go that route, that should be a winnable game.
The short answer is that Panama still has to play us here in the USA and that should be a win for us. The longer answer - and I won't go game-by-game - is that I see Panama probably getting 7 points out of its remaining 5 games and I see the USA probably getting at least 8 points out of its remaining 4 games - with the swing factor again being that Panama game here in the USA.
So we should be able to maintain our lead over Panama. The other teams (Honduras and T&T) have no chance.
Mike in Long Beach : 11:38 am : link : reply
But as you guys noted, Panama is only 1 point behind us and has a good chance of passing us in their next match.
So why is that I'm getting the vibe people consider us to be a likely qualifier, even though from what it seems to me on paper is no more than a 60% chance (at best)?
Is it because whomever we'd play from Asia if we finish 4th would be very bad?
First off, we are done playing Mexico. We have 4 matches left(the rest of the group), including ones against T&T and Honduras. While we could lose one, we will be favored to win all of them.
Secondly, we are as close to 2nd place as 4th. We only trail Costa rica by 1 in goal differential.
Thirdly, if somehow we end up in 4th place, we will b e favored to win the match against the team from Oceania - which is exactly how Mexico qualified last world cup.
I'd put our chances of qualifying at higher than 60% - more like 80% or higher.
Thirdly, if somehow we end up in 4th place, we will b e favored to win the match against the team from Oceania - which is exactly how Mexico qualified last world cup.
One small correction to the above: this cycle the 4th place CONCACAF finisher plays the 5th place Asian finisher, not the first place Oceania. I'm not sure exactly how the inter-continental playoff works, but it rotates.
As of now, the 4th place CONCACAF team would play the winner of an Australia - Uzbekistan playoff (they have some games to play still).
I didn't know that was the case.
It IS night and day. Klinsmann may have tried to do the same, but his ability to execute any plan was so miserable that we have no way of actually knowing.
Holy shit.
Quote:
and settling for counters, while saying Klinsman never did that. I get it, he played guys out of position. Let's not act like this is night and day all of the sudden. I think that it's more of getting the best players on the field. There was no tactical brilliance to the gameplan.
Holy shit.
Holy shit indeed.
Again, they had one shot on goal.
We played Mexico in the US the previous time and lost because we had no tactical plan. You might disagree with the tactics last night (not sure why you would), but it is damn difficult to say the tactics didn't work or weren't effective.
It boggles the mind.
Jones may suck, but lets not diminish Acosta. He's a stud.
Quote:
Oh, and after watching Kellyn Acosta and Bradley working together yesterday is there anyone that can say Jermaine Jones doesn't completely suck?
Jones may suck, but lets not diminish Acosta. He's a stud.
Not meant to diminish Acosta at all. He's surpassed "great prospect" status and is now simply an excellent player. And his impact on Bradley (vs. how Bradley played with Jones) is apparent.
Quote:
The conceded goal notwithstanding,
Go Terps : 11:21 am : link : reply
yesterday was an excellent performance. They achieved exactly what they set out to.
That play was a combination of Beasley allowing space, the interior defense not collapsing quickly and Guzan taking too long to anticipate the shot and react. And it was a fantastic shot by Vela.
That goal wasn't on Beasley, he's defending the outside there to keep him from getting past him and getting to goal.
The backtracking defenders -- especially Cameron -- needed to provide help on that play and didn't. Cameron had a terrific second half but he was closest to help on the goal and he ran into no man's land.
Other thoughts:
As to the quality of the U.S. play, the US had 7 corners and Mexico had 9. Even in a defensive posture they were still able to pressure Mexico from time to time.
I also thought Pulisic did a good job in the first half of giving the ball to his teammates with his first touch, but they usually didn't hold onto it.
That goal was not on Beasley--how far do you want him to cross along the 18 into the middle of the pitch before someone closes on Vela? It didn't happen.
It did look like Guzan was a bit slow to push off. The TV crew indicated (maybe noted here during the match?) that Arena tapped Guzan because he was leary of playing TH twice within three days lest he aggravate his groin. He missed many months with that injury, and like hammies they are a bitch to re-hab with success. So that made sense to me.
Speaking of the US announcing crew--and it will be all US for the WC as announced by Fox (? Is that the network), too bad. Much prefer Ian Darke and the knowledgeable crowd. It may be appealing to some, but I dislike the homer content and supposed nuance of the commentary.
And that brings me to the commentary on Salcedo, and reaction on the thread: I have no idea whether any given crew of referees is corrupt or corruptible. And Salcedo did throw an elbow into Wood's face, possible SFP, maybe even more probable than not. But I think few here have a good grasp how difficult it is for a three man team, the center and two ARs, to see the entire field, especially when you have an experienced player who knows how to shield his action using his and his victim's bodies from the view(s) of the closest official.
Only on TV, with serial replays and in slo-mo yet, does the announcing crew become all knowing: "Well, that was certainly a Red Card for SFP and no reason for it not called." Unless the crew members didn't see it! This is not being pro-ref or anti-US, it's a fact of the game that a whole shit-load of crap goes on outside the view of the refs.
Compare last night's Game 6 of Penguins-Predators. The referee at the Pens' end of the ice was in absolutely awful position, on the GL up against the far boards, and from his view he lost sight of the puck as it was trickling from under Murray's body, to be poked in by Sissons, but Pollock blew his whistle because he lost sight of it. Never mind that he should have been moving toward the back of the net really fast. It was a game and SCP Finals-changing decision.
But back to USMNT, yes, Bradley's best game for the team in many months, the goal was just the cherry on top. I thought Arena was most apt to be second guessed for being slow to bring Nagbe in, same sub. Much better movement in MF, and the MF play didn't bother me that much at all. Pulisic is elusive and such a threat; he was effective because he had to be taken account of. The big surprise to me was that Mexico did not target him physically much at all, off ball or on.
Everytime opponents enter that arena they have to overcome physical play that often isn't punished. I just think last night was more of a function of poor refereeing than bias. If they were corrupt, they'd have given Bradley another yellow, forcing him to miss the next match, or called one of the several dives in the box as penalties.
Letting some of the wing play go and then producing the yellow on Yeldin was horseshit.
As a defender you should push him to where you have extra help, and that's what Beasley did. Three defenders ran past him, only one of them was actually marking someone.
Anyone who doubts whether Arena's tactics worked needs to watch that play, if the US doesn't play a defensive minded match then those transition plays would have happened much more often.
Everytime opponents enter that arena they have to overcome physical play that often isn't punished. I just think last night was more of a function of poor refereeing than bias. If they were corrupt, they'd have given Bradley another yellow, forcing him to miss the next match, or called one of the several dives in the box as penalties.
Letting some of the wing play go and then producing the yellow on Yeldin was horseshit.
This is a reasonable post, I feel, and that's without having a concrete, extensive historical sense of the shenanigans that might prevail at Azteca. And there's a reason that Aguilar the center ref was selected, in part, because he has a pretty extensive resume at this level. You may say that should connote that the fix is in. But just as certain teams and players enter a match and certain venues apprehensive that the match and venue might be bigger than their capability, that's part of the refs' mindsets as well.
So, that could well play in to your narrative--and again, I don't use that term pejoratively here, there may well be an intimidation factor, especially at the outset. (Recall Howard Webb's "freeze" when DeJong went studs up on Alonso).
I agree that the officiating was uneven, agree that Bradley was (pretty crazily) walking too close to the edge, and agree that the inconsistency came into relief with the yellow on Yedlin--and that was a clumsy, all-too-visible attempt at a tackle on his part. Games ebb and flow, skill levels take over or recede, physicality is quiescent and then erupts, crowd noise, coaches' tactics, and it always comes down to judgment and game management: admittedly, these weren't too good in the opening 20 minutes. Salcedo's hits--as I said, I don't think, and I don't want to believe, that--they were seen and not called. Whenever players go up to head the ball, it's less often the case that elbows don't go flying as part of "leverage" (real or imagined) to get higher, so from a poor angle, Aguilar and/or the AR on that half (very poor view from across the field and two bodies in), the intent and contact could well have been missed.
Quote:
In comment 13496990 Gmen1982 said:
Quote:
and settling for counters, while saying Klinsman never did that. I get it, he played guys out of position. Let's not act like this is night and day all of the sudden. I think that it's more of getting the best players on the field. There was no tactical brilliance to the gameplan.
Holy shit.
Holy shit indeed.
ditto
In contrast, JK was always tinkering with positions and mixing and matching players as if somehow the players would suddenly develop into multi-dimensional threats. His approach was unconventional to say the least.