2014 FIFA World Cup

[ISiddiqui]

Wait... how did you sneak Xavi on that list?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Let's be fair, any squad would have had problems replacing an arguably Top 5 all time player.

Oh, of course, but that's my point - Portugal, Argentina, France, Brazil, Germany, Spain are thought of as light years ahead of us, but there's still luck in getting a Zidane, Ronaldo, Neymar, Messi, etc. And even in those countries infrastructure, you still get huge surprises like a Drogba or Klose who develops via a non-traditional path. People want to pretend there's clear evidence of consistent improvement, but that's not how international soccer works - sometimes you get lucky and get a world-class talent or generation that matches together well, sometimes even the best nations go through droughts. I do like the improvements in youth development, but our improvement internationally is going to be measured in fits and starts, not some consistent measurable baseline, especially if people really only use World Cup results as their evidence.

Originally Posted by whomario

Maybe i phrased that wrongly, i´ll try again

This is exactly why you need to be ready to play a style of football that is viable at the top stages for when you have the talent available. And ideally, the current generation already plays a modern style and plays against decent competition. It is a process.

Fact remains also, that you can´t expect to beat teams with 80% of the players in one the best 25 or so clubs in the world, when your own team includes maybe 1 or 2 of those players. It is not about having 2 or 3 world class players, but you need the majority of your team to have at least "international class".
Of course it is great for the MLS when guys stay there or come back, but longterm for the national side it would be better if only rarely a player between age 21 and 30 had to be chosen from the MLS IMO.

Colombian players also have begun to Europe much more frequently i would bet, as have chilean players probably. A Vidal did not go to Europe as a finished player, either.

And as for the tactical side or the "culture": This needs to go by the trickle-down-effect. The national team has to embrace modern style of play to give young MLS guys the oportunity to play that system against international competition, to give young technical players a goal to achieve and an oportunity within the youth system

I guess I just disagree with you on what constitutes a "modern style". A pressing, counter-attacking team in the Mourinho or Beilsa mode is a timeless style, and if anything we took a step back towards bunkering this World Cup. Some of our older teams like 2002 actually played more possession-based football and had players better equipped to break down a settled defense, but at its base it was still a team that was all about being defensively sound and then scoring with speed off counters or on set pieces. Yes, we need a couple better players, but that style is effective and can win world cups.

I also think you underrate MLS as a league for players to develop in. Brian McBride, Clint Dempsey and Landon Donovan all improved their international reputation (and bank account balances) when they played in the EPL, but they developed here in America and moved to a situation when and where they could get consistent playing time. People are in love with the potential of Green, Yedlin, and Brooks, and I hope I'm wrong, but odds are that this will be the high point of the career for at least one of them. Yes, there is a level where they should move on from the MLS, but whether they are in Bayern Munich's reserves or playing regularly in MLS at age 21 isn't going to be the deciding factor. Throw in Llegett or Gyau or Nagbe or Fagundez or Parker or Zelalem or whoever is the next flavor of the month future USMNT savior people want to talk about.

[whomario]

part of what makes it difficult to me also is that european teams basically play a world-cup-level tournament every 2 years, which (from what i can tell) no other confederation can really offer. A european title is considered just as big an achievement as a World Cup and sparks the same level of enthusiasm in fans/media coverage. I think even the Copa America does not offer that and another factor there is that all the south american teams play each other all the time anyway, while the big teams in europe don´t clash in qualification generally and even seldom in the group stages. This makes it a bit less of a "4 year cycle" for the european teams than it is for the US, for example.
This can be seen as an advantage (more time to test out things for example) but it also is one less opportunity to face top competition.



re: Zidane

The thing that sets apart Zidane to me is that he had such an unbelievable presence on the field. He also was very much a player that was best appreciated and judged over a course of 90 minutes. Of course he had highlights, but the most outstanding thing about him was that 99 out of 100 things he did were the exact right thing in that specific situation. Never have seen a player with a better feel for the game and a better understanding of how to manipulate entire defenses with seemingly unimportant actions: A little run here, a short pass there, a change of direction.
The couple of times i saw him live in the stands my eyes literally gravitated to him all game.
Quite simply, he consistently had as much influence on a game as you can expect a player to have in an 11:11 game, for France especially.
And that´s not to say that i did not enjoy his amazing abilities on the ball as well

There is also (imo) very little point in comparing ability across the eras and even the relative stature of the player (to his peers) is very iffy with how vastly the global landscape has changed, the depth of quality players has just grown sooo much (as in every other sport, just a natural development in par with bigger populations and ever more professionalism in all sports). I´d be comfortable naming tiers of players, but doing a concrete order is very difficult.

But there can´t be all that much argument (i´d think ) that from about 97 to 2006 Zidane was the most consistently great player around. He would have been in the consensual first tier (5 guys maybe ?) at any given time i´d wager. And that is an era that absolutely shaped the sport as we know it (imo there is a distinct cut after the 96 world cup in terms of tactics, style of play and types of players leaving their mark)
Not as far above the field individually than a Messi seemed at times in recent years but not far off from that imo and those national team titles are huge.

Absolutely don´t see why what Zidane did in those years would not be at least as impressive as what f.e. a Cruyff did relative to the era.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

On Dempsey and the free kick: i admit while watching the replay last night, I nearly leapt out of my chair, as I remember my father doing when Dwight Clark made THE CATCH against Dallas.
I was ecstatic because "He HAS to score there!" Ouch.

On Wondo. I'm guessing that he just started sleeping well again after his VERY similar howler a few years back in the gold cup.

It is hard to believe that we, as an international side haven't improved our finishing enough in three years that Wondo is still in a position to be on the field missing that shot.

I think that's the saddest thing! Wondo on the field in the first place in a key moment.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Oh, of course, but that's my point - Portugal, Argentina, France, Brazil, Germany, Spain are thought of as light years ahead of us, but there's still luck in getting a Zidane, Ronaldo, Neymar, Messi, etc. And even in those countries infrastructure, you still get huge surprises like a Drogba or Klose who develops via a non-traditional path.

Well, look at Ivory Coast and Drogba, though. What have they have to show for this wonderful talent? The US has had more success. Of course, sometimes a once in a time talent develops, but if you don't have a infrastructure in place to support them, you don't get far as its one player and some others.

if anything we took a step back towards bunkering this World Cup

Agreed. I was a bit disappointed in Klinsmann for saying we'll never bunker again, and then decided to bunker. And fans still going "In Klinsmann we trust" regardless - I'm not saying he did a bad job, but he's not perfect. I mean Arena had his critics even after leading the US to the QFs. It seems the federation wanted Klinsmann for so long that there has to be unyielding acceptance of his decisions.

People are in love with the potential of Green, Yedlin, and Brooks, and I hope I'm wrong, but odds are that this will be the high point of the career for at least one of them.

No doubt. Plenty of players with huge upsides, who played in a WC, who flame out later - ie, Oguchi Onyewu.

[ColtCrazy]

Was out with friends for the US game. A fantastic game and definitely a good run for the US.
I think the two players that have really impressed me in this cup are both goalies: Howard and Ochoa. Of course, Messi has been wonderful too.

Now, I'm back to routing for the 3 European teams and Columbia to knock the hosts out. Didn't like them yesterday, but I kind of like this Belgium team. Great attacking team (which makes Howard's performance even more impressive).

[ISiddiqui]

Now, normally I can't stand Keith Olbermann, but on this, I think he's right on:

How to Make Soccer Work in America - YouTube

It's 7 practical ways to make soccer more appealing to Americans and NONE of them involve rule changes. Basically his main point is stop trying to be England-light because it just makes soccer fans look pretentious and turns off others. Which I think is a good point. I also like his idea of try to get away from FIFA as much as possible, but I don't actually see any possible way of it working - which is incredibly sad to consider.

[Logan]

Landon Donovan takes a shot at Jurgen Klinsmann: ‘I don’t think we were set up to succeed’ at World Cup - The Washington Post

[ISiddiqui]

Well he was completely right about Bradley, IMO.

[ISiddiqui]

From Donovan's comments:

They were set up in a way that was opposite from what they’ve been the past couple years, which is opening up, passing, attacking – trying to do that. And the team’s been successful that way. Why they decided to switch that in the World Cup, none of us will know.

It's an interesting point. It seemed like last year, at the Gold Cup, the team was far more open and flowing, as Klinsmann said was his intention. But then at that World Cup, the team decided to go back to bunkering, which Klinsmann said he wasn't really in favor of when USMNT's of the past did so. I have wondered about that choice. I realize that Germany and Belgium are higher quality than CONCACAF squads, but it seemed an abrupt change.

[Warhammer]

I think we played better without having Donovan on the team. It was bad luck that Altidore went down, but the last WC seemed to be a team that was waiting around for Donovan or Dempsey to make something happen. This year, we were 5 feet from the quarters. If Wondo buries his chance, we're in.

This year seemed different. Yes, we played better when we went on the attack, but after the Ghana game, we played much more defensively. I think much of that was due to the defensive struggles we had in the Ghana game. We can advance through CONCACAF with athletic ability alone. When we are up against the world's best, we no longer have that advantage.

What we need is a generation of players to go to the EPL. After they hit 30, they need to come to the MLS and pass what they have learned to the next generation.

[gstelmack]

We bunkered after Altidore went down, didn't we?

[JPhillips]

Does that have anything to do with the lose of Altidore?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

We bunkered after Altidore went down, didn't we?

Losing one player doesn't mean you change your entire strategy, unless your entire strategy was based on that one player. Switch from a 4-4-2 diamond to a 4-2-3-1 and you can still play attacking.

Which makes me wonder why Klinsmann didn't bring a 'target man' like forward as a backup (Boyd for instance) instead of Aron Johansson. If one injury can completely alter the entire tactical plan, and that one player is (relatively) easily replaceable, that's a mistake.

[rowech]

The loss of Altidore cannot be understated to the team. To pretend otherwise is naive. Now, not being better prepared for that possibility is on Klinsman. Let's say Jozy goes down but you had Landon. What would you have done?

[ISiddiqui]

First, I would have likely brought a target man forward for backup. Boyd I mentioned, so we'll use him. Don't even need to speculate about Donovan being there.

(Though, with a Donovan, Dempsey, Boyd team (Wondo on bench) you have Donovan as Attacking MF, dropping Bradley back to his normal position. Do a 4-1-4-1 (Beckerman an unfortunate casualty of this).)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by rowech

The loss of Altidore cannot be understated to the team. To pretend otherwise is naive. Now, not being better prepared for that possibility is on Klinsman. Let's say Jozy goes down but you had Landon. What would you have done?

That said, I think the loss of Altidore would be less detrimental to us than, say, the loss of Messi to Argentina, right?

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's an interesting point. It seemed like last year, at the Gold Cup, the team was far more open and flowing, as Klinsmann said was his intention. But then at that World Cup, the team decided to go back to bunkering, which Klinsmann said he wasn't really in favor of when USMNT's of the past did so. I have wondered about that choice. I realize that Germany and Belgium are higher quality than CONCACAF squads, but it seemed an abrupt change.

Plenty of good to great teams abruptly change tactics. This past year's Chelsea was a particularly good example, going from extreme parking the bus to ferocious counter-attack to suffocating high pressing as the occasion demanded. Even Real Madrid change tactics, given that the counter-attacking style they use with possession-based teams won't work against most of the team in their league who will just park the bus and hope for the best.

Klinsmann has shown himself to be a tactical pragmatist, which is, IMO, good.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

the last WC seemed to be a team that was waiting around for Donovan or Dempsey to make something happen.

Yes. Another reason to agree with the dropping of Donovan.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by whomario

So have Green and likely a dozen players for various national teams around the globe

I am happy that the US played a spirited game (and tournament), sorry it did not end in a win yesterday. Can´t claim that Belgium was not the better team though, i´m afraid.

I think the way the US with Klinsmann has started is the right one. I think i made a similar post before and am not feeling like typing a novel right now regardless, so the short thoughts i have here:

1) The talent level, right now, is not there. It is much easier to build a quality defense with lesser talent (especially if it is backed by a Top5 GK in the world), than it is to build a potent attack. There is a reason why no one other than Dempsey has played an attacking role with even a borderline EL/CL team (in case of some of the younger players, maybe not yet) and a reason why Bradley was forced into a much more offensive responsibility than he is comfortable with imo. Guys like Zusi or Bedoya are not quality wingers.
There are not many players who would start for any of the 1/4 finalists.

2) The current roster is also not incredibly young, with quite a few starters unlikely (or at least not totally likely) to play again in 4 years.

3) With the physical talent naturally around, the US could choose to rely on fighting spirit, team work and the occasional real talent and reach the round of 16 regularly or sometimes the round of 8.

4) However, if there is ever to be a chance for more than a miracle run going further than that, you need to create the "base" of something more sound and reliable. Especially nowadays, where nearly every team (well, there´s allways a Cameroon) is able to play hard and smart to some degree and no one is underestimating anybody anymore.
Because for that time when a new Donovan or a few similarly talented players arrive on the scene, you don´t want to be caught not being up to speed as a team and an "organization".
By which i don´t claim that it is key to play offensive minded football. But you need a system and a culture where players know how to play with the ball, not just defend against the other team. The very best teams of the last decade had a great defense (and neither Spain, nor Italy or France played all out attacking football), but they also had players that were able to play on the ball and who had that responsibility and freedom to take risks.

5) you can´t plan titles in soccer, but you can enhance your chances to take advantage of the opportunity. And i think the US putting more stock into player development in terms of skill and tactics, as well as a more fluid and "self-controlled" game with more of an eye on attacking play is the way to go.

6) It is absolutely necessary for young, promising players to go abroad, tough it out and work themselves up the ladder. You need the majority of your players playing big time competition as often as possible. You can´t prepare for those moments in training and you can´t become a world class player playing against subpar competition, period. (which is not a slight to the MLS per se or saying it can´t improve: But it is just not likely that it will ever be top flight or be part of anything resembling the Champions League)

DeAndre Yedlin for example should go over right after the tournament. There will be team calling without question, it is up to him ultimately if he wants to take that challenge or not. And this does not mean a big club really, but a mid table team somewhere. Maybe even that is too much of an adjustment and it might be a bad move for him. But for the USMNT to improve, there needs to be the same that applies to the other nations without top leagues: 10 guys coming over equals 2 or 3 success stories.

I mean, it is the same with young player within the big nations with top leagues: Without looking it up i am sure that not even 1/2 of the german U17 or even the U19 national team regularly make the jump to even Division 2 football in germany in their career and the U21 team will always have more guys ending up on the fringe of first division than on the senior national team.

Playing time is important and the floor might be higher for a guy just playing MLS until 24,25 (or all career) but the ceiling naturally gets lowered as well over time.



Hope this does not come across as negative, it is not meant that way i can assure you

I agree that it seems like, on some level, we just needed more athletes.

As the game wound up, I was thinking about what if Russell Westbrook had been given a soccer ball and not a basketball as a kid. A freak athlete with a chip on his shoulder and a shoot-too-much mentality seems like it would have been just the thing that the USMNT needed.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That said, I think the loss of Altidore would be less detrimental to us than, say, the loss of Messi to Argentina, right?

SI

It somewhat, IMO, ignores that for the last 6 months or so Altidore wasn't even that good!! I mean this isn't like Neymar going down for Brazil or Messi going down for Argentina. How did Altidore become this 'essential' player when he's been absolute crap for his club side and the USMNT for months.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That said, I think the loss of Altidore would be less detrimental to us than, say, the loss of Messi to Argentina, right?

Correct. Relevant: Lionel Messi Is Impossible | FiveThirtyEight

[vex]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I agree that it seems like, on some level, we just needed more athletes.

As the game wound up, I was thinking about what if Russell Westbrook had been given a soccer ball and not a basketball as a kid. A freak athlete with a chip on his shoulder and a shoot-too-much mentality seems like it would have been just the thing that the USMNT needed.

Westbrook on the wing would be incredible.

[Warhammer]

It's not that Altidore was great, but he is a player you have to account for. John Taylor and Jerry Rice come to mind. As a Rams fan, Taylor was the one who ripped our hearts out more than Rice did. We would blanket Rice, and then Taylor would rip turn a short catch into a 90 yard TD. If you played them straight, Rice would burn you.

Dempsey is a player that other teams account for playing us, we need that second banana to put pressure on the opposing team so they have to play him straight. Altidore was that guy for us.

[Easy Mac]

Well, I think we saw why Jozy was important in terms of our ability to hang onto the ball. I'd say normally, the team could throw it upfield and hope Jozy could wrestle the ball for a few seconds until someone else came up. Instead, we had guys trying to play it out of the back. Since our touches generally aren't the best, that means we turned the ball over deeper in the defensive half, which allowed the other team to transition faster closer to our goal.

[Chief Rum]

I think Klinsmann made a ton of mistakes with this team, both in the side construction, team selection and in how he ran the squad in Brazil.

To dismiss those mistakes because the team saw some success would be an error. Klinsmann made some right calls, and he also made some wrong calls.

Not having a target man backup for Jozy was an immense error. Not having more creativity on your squad (yes, Donovan, attacking mid), that is a major error. The changing approach from the qualifiers to the WC was also a major error.

Obviously, though, we got out of the group of death and had a shot to advance to the quarters, so it ended up well enough. But I think we would have been more competitive and clearly on par with our opponents--even if we failed to get out of group play--had we done these other things.

[Barkeep49]

CR, I'm curious: what are 2 or 3 decisions that Klinsmann made that were poor that turned out OK anyway?

I feel like if Altidore doesn't get injured no one lays that as a criticism at his feet, but it's a fair criticism because of the radical effect it did have. Even if Altidore hadn't gotten injure it was still a mistake by Klinsmann. We just recognize it because it came to pass. I'm more skeptical about the rest of the list because it feels results oriented.

[Barkeep49]

DOLA - As an example, there was a LOT of criticism about his inclusion of Yedlin, Green, and Brooks. Since all 3 of those players had moments, no one is mentioning that now. That too feels results oriented (though I always though the criticism unfair).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Since our touches generally aren't the best

That, I think, is what stood out to me more than anything else while watching vs Belgium.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Not having a target man backup for Jozy was an immense error. Not having more creativity on your squad (yes, Donovan, attacking mid), that is a major error. The changing approach from the qualifiers to the WC was also a major error.

Let's be honest, there is no U.S. player who can provide WC-level creativity on a consistent basis. Bradley can do it somewhat from a deeper-lying position. Dempsey can do it somewhat through his fits of unpredictability. Donovan can maybe still do it, but given his own admissions on fitness you'd expect that to have lasted maybe 45 minutes a game in Brazil. That's it. Oh sure, other players in the side can be consistently creative on an MLS level, but not at a WC level.

And let's say you had Donovan. And let's say he's the most consistently creative player available to the U.S. Well, then you have a team that would act like Portugal - dick around and wait for Ronaldo / Donovan to make something happen. Except that Donovan is just barely good enough these days to shine Ronaldo's shoes.

Which leads to the change in approach. Again, you must adjust to the quality of your opponent.

[flere-imsaho]

World Cup 2014 in statistics: the best XI from the last-16 stage in Brazil | Football | theguardian.com



No surprise on Howard, interesting surprise on Cameron:

A surprise selection in the heart of midfield for USA, Geoff Cameron did not let Jürgen Klinsmann down, bouncing back from a disappointing display against Portugal in admirable fashion. The versatile Stoke City man had the most touches (113) of any player on the pitch against Belgium, showing quick feet in midfield at times to complete four dribbles. With five tackles and eight clearances, he was well worthy of his 8.40 rating.

[Easy Mac]

My main criticism of Klinnsmann is the Donovan thing. Even if not fit for 90 minutes, every game he subbed out either Bedoya, Davis or Zusi, sometimes both. If you're going to do that every game, it makes more sense to have Donovan on the bench to take their place.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

World Cup 2014 in statistics: the best XI from the last-16 stage in Brazil | Football | theguardian.com



No surprise on Howard, interesting surprise on Cameron:

I thought Cameron did well in the game, I think I said as much earlier in the thread. I think the only reason Beckerman jumped him in the pecking order is because Cameron could play in the back.

[bhlloy]

Bit surprised on some of those. Thought Di Maria was consistently very wasteful for Argentina, and didn't think Cameron had a great game

[Alf]

James Rodriguez >> Di Maria

[flere-imsaho]

Angel di María, Argentina

He had a frustrating afternoon until he scored the winner deep into extra-time against Switzerland but Di María was unquestionably influential. Despite some poor decision-making on the day, the Real Madrid winger was continuously entrusted with possession by his team-mates, having more touches than any other player on the pitch (125). His bid to take the glory eventually paid off having mustered a massive 12 shots, nine successful dribbles and three key passes.

Advanced statistics is still a work in progress, but whoscored.com (often cross-posting to The Guardian), do a good job, IMO.

[flere-imsaho]

FWIW, Rodriguez rated an 8.4 in the match against Uruguay.

Rodriguez stats (vs. Uruguay):

Pass Accuracy: 78%
Aerials Won: 0/0
Touches: 52
Fouls: 3
Total Shots: 3
Dribbles Won: 0/0
Tackles: 2

Angel Di Maria (vs. Algeria):

Pass Accuracy: 63%
Aerials Won: 0/0
Touches: 125
Fouls: 2
Total Shots: 12
Dribbles Won: 9
Tackles: 0/0

[Karlifornia]

Klinsmann put this team in the direction it needs to go to be competitive on the world stage. Anyone discounting him is making the mistake.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

CR, I'm curious: what are 2 or 3 decisions that Klinsmann made that were poor that turned out OK anyway?

I feel like if Altidore doesn't get injured no one lays that as a criticism at his feet, but it's a fair criticism because of the radical effect it did have. Even if Altidore hadn't gotten injure it was still a mistake by Klinsmann. We just recognize it because it came to pass. I'm more skeptical about the rest of the list because it feels results oriented.

I tend to agree with the fact that we went too defensive in the WC, but going defensive probably got us out of the Group of Death and gave us a chance against Belgium.

But really I guess saying "2-3 decisions" that turned out okay is more easily described as, "he made several very questionable decisions" but the only result that matters--got out of group, almost beat Belgium--he got, despite those decisions.

[flere-imsaho]

Awesome, read the whole thing: Stop Making Sense «

The one knock on the tournament so far, the reason you’re not hearing even more people preemptively declare it THE BEST WORLD CUP EVER, is the lack of a truly great team. Everyone has weaknesses. Every plausible contender — so not looking at you, Colombia, although maybe I should be — has played at least one unconvincing game. This means the path to the championship is wide open; it also means no single team has emerged to crystallize the possibilities of soccer at this moment.

The thing about soccer, as opposed to, say, American football, is that hardly anyone ever really knows what it’s supposed to look like. You want one team to climb up to the mountaintop and hold forth a shining example of style for others to follow. Spain gave us tiki-taka, and, love it or hate it, it was at least an ethos. The history of the game moves forward with these revelations. At this World Cup, the glowing tablet is likely to read “SORT OF MORE COUNTERATTACKING THAN BEFORE BUT GOD KNOWS WHAT WE’RE DOING WITH THESE FULL-BACKS.”

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

DOLA - As an example, there was a LOT of criticism about his inclusion of Yedlin, Green, and Brooks. Since all 3 of those players had moments, no one is mentioning that now. That too feels results oriented (though I always though the criticism unfair).

For the most part, I didn't have much of an issue with his side selection, outside of Donovan and bringing in an at least competent backup target man to Altidore. I like both Yedlin and Green. I don't know much about Brooks, so my reaction to him would be entirely results oriented, since he got the goal against Ghana. Before that, I feel like I would have wanted more experience on the back line.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

My main criticism of Klinnsmann is the Donovan thing. Even if not fit for 90 minutes, every game he subbed out either Bedoya, Davis or Zusi, sometimes both. If you're going to do that every game, it makes more sense to have Donovan on the bench to take their place.

That does tend to puzzle. Even if Donovan could only go 30 - he would make a great sub in for Zusi when we would have needed a bit more oomph in the offense.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Let's be honest, there is no U.S. player who can provide WC-level creativity on a consistent basis. Bradley can do it somewhat from a deeper-lying position. Dempsey can do it somewhat through his fits of unpredictability. Donovan can maybe still do it, but given his own admissions on fitness you'd expect that to have lasted maybe 45 minutes a game in Brazil. That's it. Oh sure, other players in the side can be consistently creative on an MLS level, but not at a WC level.

And let's say you had Donovan. And let's say he's the most consistently creative player available to the U.S. Well, then you have a team that would act like Portugal - dick around and wait for Ronaldo / Donovan to make something happen. Except that Donovan is just barely good enough these days to shine Ronaldo's shoes.

Which leads to the change in approach. Again, you must adjust to the quality of your opponent.

Just because we don't have creativity on the level of the top sides in the world, doesn't mean we should only bring campers with a defensive mentality.

Donavan may not be the be all, end all anymore, but he's better going forward than most anyone else on our squad from the midfield, other than maybe Dempsey. Even if we play him as a reserve to inject life, he brings value. And his experience at this level would have been priceless. Toss in that his inclusion moves Bradley back to a more comfortable position for him, and you're really creating two valuable positions in the side. As for his fitness, I suspect had Donovan been included, he would have manned up and been out there, even if we had to take him off at 70 or something like that.

As for the much talked about "waiting for Donovan to act", that's on Klinsmann to fix. He is the manager. If his players are waiting on Donovan, then Klinsmann didn't do enough to inspire confidence in those players to do for themselves what they're waiting for Donovan to do. And the reality is that most players would have put Dempsey ahead of Donovan anyway, on that scale, and Donovan was left off of the side last year, so it's not like the team isn't used to playing without relying on him.

I understand that you need to adjust to the opponent, but not to the point where you sell out your whole identity for it. The US's usual advantage is in being athletic, fit and hard workers. Make THAT work for us. Don't take all that away by bunkering for 90.

[ISiddiqui]

I hasten to add, btw, I like Klinsmann. I think he's done a decent job. However, if the US is ever to become a great soccer country, we have to learn how to criticize our coaches with the best of 'em .

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Klinsmann put this team in the direction it needs to go to be competitive on the world stage. Anyone discounting him is making the mistake.

The US basically did the same exact thing in 2002 under Bruce Arena, while playing more open and flowing soccer. People who think Klinsmann did something radical either only watched the early games of Bob Bradley's tenure, the Steve Sampson US side, or are paying attention solely to what Klinsmann says and ignoring the actual product he put out on the field.

Unless Klinsmann felt that Donovan couldn't accept a sub role- which is a possibility- that's one of his 2 egregious errors. It was never that Julian Green was picked over Donovan, it was that Green, Davis, AJ, Mix, and Wondo were taken over him. The other was drastically switching our tactics right before the world cup (going with 3 DM's) and then not adjusting once Altidore went down. I'm fine not taking a backup target striker if Terrence Boyd is really our next best option, and I understood when Jozy going down messed us up the whole Ghana game. But I don't understand, given the roster makeup, why we didn't come out in more of a 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-2 the next game.

[PilotMan]

Donovan has always relied on his speed in creating attacks. His speed isn't what it used to be, and we've seen in past big games that he gets physically moved off the ball much easier than he should. He certainly could have been an option late in the game but looking at him anything more than a sub would have been optimistic.

I just don't think he was ever in a position to be more than that. I thought maybe he could play in the middle in front of Bradley, but I just think he would have done it this year.

Let's face it, creativity is what we need. When Beckerman is considered creative for the MLS there's a problem. I thought Jones played his ass off, although he was a little lost against Belgium. Dempsey could have been a real force playing off of Jozy, but instead played pretty fucking awesome in place of Jozy.

There is nobody in the US system who can play like Jozy in this system. He is too big, too physical, and would have stretched the pitch much more leaving massive space behind. We didn't have that as much as we needed. The tactic was there, the concept was there, but there was just no way to pull it off without him in there. Even if he doesn't score at all.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Advanced statistics is still a work in progress, but whoscored.com (often cross-posting to The Guardian), do a good job, IMO.

If advanced statistics state that Di Maria was one of the best players in the second round, it tells me soccer advanced stats are not worth a damn. Di Maria had a shocker against Switzerland.

Mesut Ozil also had a poor game against Algeria.

[Vince, Pt. II]

So this is a squad who was slated to have a very slim chance to make it out of their group, and definitely were underdogs to a talented Belgian side who many have tabbed to be a dark horse candidate to go far. The squad by all accounts INTENDED to play with a counter-attacking strategy, and executed it to the point where they lost by only a single goal to two of the higher-regarded teams in the whole tournament.

At what point is a team drawing up a strategy and executing it enough to get people off the idea that the team was dominated? They out-performed expectations, some would say dramatically. Why are people looking for more out of the squad?

I think Belgium's exuberant celebration at the close of play was indication enough that the US has come a long way. Could they be better? Absolutely. Having a target man up front would be huge, and a better midfield is a tremendous priority. That being said, I don't know if the Monday morning QB aspect of the criticism post-facto is entirely necessary.

Also: yes, I understand that Howard had to put forth a record-setting performance to keep the US in the match against Belgium...but he did. They relied on their strength (goalkeeping), and it held. Mostly.

[whomario]

whoscored stats tend to overate quantity in most stats if i remember correctly. In that case, the fact that Di Maria played on an argentina team pressing for the lead for 118 minutes while James Rodriguez played on a columbia team that had the lead for a decent amount (plus he got subbed out) likely played a part.
Also, defensive players have generally lower ratings than attacking players.

It is no replacement for the "eye test", it adds another element and some of the stats around can help verify an impression. The game is just really, really tough to judge mainly by stats, team or player, game or tournament/season.

Also, it is worth noting that the Top5 players according to their rating system for the whole Cup are: Messi, Robben, James, Neymar, Di Maria. I´d wager that all those guys would have been in the Top10 of most of the guys posting here, right ?

(the next 5 are Pjanic, DeBruyne, Sanchez, Ricardo Rodriguez and Müller. Again, not exactly weird choices. Maybe Pjanic, but even he was pretty good)

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

So this is a squad who was slated to have a very slim chance to make it out of their group, and definitely were underdogs to a talented Belgian side who many have tabbed to be a dark horse candidate to go far. The squad by all accounts INTENDED to play with a counter-attacking strategy, and executed it to the point where they lost by only a single goal to two of the higher-regarded teams in the whole tournament.

At what point is a team drawing up a strategy and executing it enough to get people off the idea that the team was dominated? They out-performed expectations, some would say dramatically. Why are people looking for more out of the squad?

I think Belgium's exuberant celebration at the close of play was indication enough that the US has come a long way. Could they be better? Absolutely. Having a target man up front would be huge, and a better midfield is a tremendous priority. That being said, I don't know if the Monday morning QB aspect of the criticism post-facto is entirely necessary.

Also: yes, I understand that Howard had to put forth a record-setting performance to keep the US in the match against Belgium...but he did. They relied on their strength (goalkeeping), and it held. Mostly.

It was only pessimists like DT and Rainmaker who were saying we had no chance to make it through the group. I was arguing the day of the draw that we probably had a 40-50% chance to make it thru... And we made it thru with 4 pts on GD.

There is a difference between counterattacking and bunkering, and it certainly felt a lot more like the latter in 3 out of the 4 games.

I was hoping for, but didn't expect any more, but at the same time it's not some huge achievement or leap forward. I didn't see some material difference between our 2002, 2010, or 2014 teams. Heck, throw the 2009 Confed Cup run in as well.

I don't think many of the criticisms here are MMQB'ing... People questioned the lack of a backup to Jozy and no Landon when the squad was set. People questioned why why we were insistent on playing with a target striker if Jozy wasn't in the lineup. People thought that AJ or Mix should have played over Wondo to help bring creativity. People at the bar were screaming at the TV wondering why JK was taking so long to use his 3rd sub.

Again, I like JK overall, but I don't think he's any better than Bruce Arena was. I love his outreach and thonk he is a little better at bringing some multinational youngsters into the program, but we've always done that, and we've always had guys with potential- let's see it actually produce a superstar before acting like its some special thing. I still don't think he's great at in-game management- and I think our German posters would agree he's better as a figurehead with a Juergen Low at his side. It was a cromulent performance, a B-, something we can build on but not something to be celebrated.

[ISiddiqui]

Been waiting for the Zonal Marking write up on the game (thanks to Marc Vaughan for making me aware of the site to begin with):

Belgium 2-1 USA: Belgium dominate but take ages to make the breakthrough | Zonal Marking

The key factor was a direct result of the most surprising selection decision. Beckerman and Jermaine Jones had worked excellently as a duo throughout this competition, and bringing in Cameron in a (relatively) unfamiliar position didn’t make much sense.

The game was played at great pace, with both teams attempting to play high up the pitch and dominate. Belgium were so much quicker on the counter-attack, however, and they continually found oceans of space in the centre of midfield, often both in front of, and behind, the USA midfield.

Cameron simply seemed unnatural in that zone, positioning himself too high up the pitch and getting drawn to Belgium’s midfielders, rather than sitting back and protecting his defence – as Beckerman does so well. Cameron’s booking, on 18 minutes, for a terribly cynical foul to break up a Dries Mertens counter-attack suggested that, frankly, he didn’t know how to play the holding position.

USA have shown some glimpses of real quality, and this game fits into the pattern from throughout the competition – they’re best when they need a goal.

However, they’re rather fortunate to exit this competition as battling, narrowly defeated heroes – they should have been at least 2-0 down by half-time, and Klinsmann’s tactics would have been much more heavily criticised. The decision to drop Beckerman seemed strange on paper, turned out to be counter-productive on the pitch, and there was no attempt to solve the problem. Howard was absolutely fantastic, but if your goalkeeper has to make a record-breaking number of saves, something has gone wrong higher up the pitch.