we sat back the 2nd half. I understand preserving the tie towards the end but we were playing for a tie the whole second half. I just don't agree with it. I know the goal is to advance.
We deserved to lose...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
if we were playing for a draw. Surely not, but how else do you explain the total lack of offensive pressure, especially when we played most of the first half on their end?
as to why England is so much better than the U.S. The ending score aside, England had at least 7-8 solid scoring opportunities in the second half to our 1. There was a play towards the end of the game where the U.S. stole the ball about 40 yards out from our own goal and rather than attack, we just kept passing it backwards until the ball eventually made its way to Howard. At that point, I realized that it wasn't necessarily a matter of England being that much better. It was just that we were playing for the tie and that really pisses me off.
was a lack of execution. We kicked several offensive passes out of bounds. When you can't possess the ball without kicking it out of bounds, you can't get much offensive pressure.
Overall, I think this was a good result. Not a great one, but a good one. And like Lalas said, I'll take that point against England and get out of town any day. England has a lot of questions to answer in the next 2 games.
ETA: I don't really disagree with you that we should have been more offensive minded. As good as England is, their one weakness going in was there defense. And they didn't even know who their #1 goalkeeper was. I'd say they still don't know, although they may know who their #1 goalkeeper isn't. Our forwards had a huge speed advantage over their defense and we could have really given them some trouble if we had pushed the ball forward more.
Overall, I think this was a good result. Not a great one, but a good one. And like Lalas said, I'll take that point against England and get out of town any day. England has a lot of questions to answer in the next 2 games.
ETA: I don't really disagree with you that we should have been more offensive minded. As good as England is, their one weakness going in was there defense. And they didn't even know who their #1 goalkeeper was. I'd say they still don't know, although they may know who their #1 goalkeeper isn't. Our forwards had a huge speed advantage over their defense and we could have really given them some trouble if we had pushed the ball forward more.
From what I understand, we were supposed to lose. Judging by the fans at Dempsey's Pub, the ones in the stands and that red headed commentator, this was a win. So by being tied late in the game, we were essentially nursing the lead down the stretch. And unlike a Stansbury nursed lead, we didn't blow it.
we were giving them so much space in the England offensive half - they were basically free to roam until about 30 yds out.
why soccer has had a harder time catching on in America. We want a clear cut winner and loser. Often times in soccer, you don't have that.
Here in America, a tie is a tie. It's not as good as a win to a lot of people who aren't in the know.
Here in America, a tie is a tie. It's not as good as a win to a lot of people who aren't in the know.
My uneducated take...
- Yes, we were happy to play for the tie, particularly late.
- The reason England had so much space was two things. First, their midfield is their strong suit (Lampard, Gerrard vs Bradley and Clark) so our guys were not able to get control of that part of the field at all. Donovan would dart inside and do some nice things from time to time, but basically the middle was Englands and midfield is where everything orginates. On the flip side, because our central midfield isn't as strong, and because Dempsey has never been known to track back on his wing in defense that much, that left England's attack vs nothing but the US backline so not only was the backline outnumbered, they had to drop back.
- Saying that, I thought Demerit did a nice job on Rooney. Also, I thought Cherundlo played a heck of a game on his side - love that guy! He's so smart and does the little things to compensate for talent and lack of size.
- Still not a Clark fan. I thought the first goal was on him to a large degree. When I saw him starting, I knew Bradley was playing more for a tie because Torres or Edu are much better offensively.
- And finally. Howard was a BEAST! That guy is worth whatever he's making and then some. He bailed our asses out of the fire so many times today I lost count.
On to the Sloveniaks and the Battle of Algiers! U-S-A!
- Yes, we were happy to play for the tie, particularly late.
- The reason England had so much space was two things. First, their midfield is their strong suit (Lampard, Gerrard vs Bradley and Clark) so our guys were not able to get control of that part of the field at all. Donovan would dart inside and do some nice things from time to time, but basically the middle was Englands and midfield is where everything orginates. On the flip side, because our central midfield isn't as strong, and because Dempsey has never been known to track back on his wing in defense that much, that left England's attack vs nothing but the US backline so not only was the backline outnumbered, they had to drop back.
- Saying that, I thought Demerit did a nice job on Rooney. Also, I thought Cherundlo played a heck of a game on his side - love that guy! He's so smart and does the little things to compensate for talent and lack of size.
- Still not a Clark fan. I thought the first goal was on him to a large degree. When I saw him starting, I knew Bradley was playing more for a tie because Torres or Edu are much better offensively.
- And finally. Howard was a BEAST! That guy is worth whatever he's making and then some. He bailed our asses out of the fire so many times today I lost count.
On to the Sloveniaks and the Battle of Algiers! U-S-A!
and really don't want to know much. But from what little I watched today, England was certainly the aggressor. Due to better players? It looked that way to me. Team USA probably happy with a draw.
I wouldn't say we deserved to lose. I thought we missed good chances throughout the game just like England did.
We don't have the depth that an England or Argentina does. We have to play a bit differently to keep our wind. I didn't mind the more defensive take at the end- Rooney was getting pissed and was therefore more of a problem. We're not the type of team that typically dominates offensively, especially on these teams. We do better building up quick attacks.
We (for the most part) allowed space to keep them in front of us. Again, you don't want a player like Wayne Rooney to beat you quickly. Give him space, keep him in front, and read his movement. Close in when it's the right time. Yes, though, at times, too much space was given. It happens.
We play a different game than your traditional powers. It does not mean it cannot be efficient or effective. We have to preserve our players in these type tournaments and look to attack when the opportunity arises. Our defense is our weak link usually, but thankfully there is a world-class goalkeeper backing them up.
We don't have the depth that an England or Argentina does. We have to play a bit differently to keep our wind. I didn't mind the more defensive take at the end- Rooney was getting pissed and was therefore more of a problem. We're not the type of team that typically dominates offensively, especially on these teams. We do better building up quick attacks.
We (for the most part) allowed space to keep them in front of us. Again, you don't want a player like Wayne Rooney to beat you quickly. Give him space, keep him in front, and read his movement. Close in when it's the right time. Yes, though, at times, too much space was given. It happens.
We play a different game than your traditional powers. It does not mean it cannot be efficient or effective. We have to preserve our players in these type tournaments and look to attack when the opportunity arises. Our defense is our weak link usually, but thankfully there is a world-class goalkeeper backing them up.