Propensity to fall behind could bite the U.S. World Cup effort
If you know a guy who knows a guy – if you know what I mean – here’s the best bet you could make concerning the first U.S. World Cup match:
Clearly, there are no guarantees in life. There are always mysterious forces at work – otherwise, women wouldn’t keep marrying Larry King.
But the data suggests strongly that the
Back in final round CONCACAF qualifying, sleepy starts saw the
Bradley frequently found solace in the positive responses – even if the matches were admittedly less comfortable than they needed to be. Here's what he said along the way:
"You do feel that pressure for a moment, but there was a real strong response from the players on the field," the
"It’s not what you’re hoping for," Bradley said with a weary grin. "Soccer is crazy sometimes. You take the initiative in games, but it doesn’t always mean you’re going to score. Ultimately, you hope it’s something you can turn around, but it’s nice to see everybody understand that the game’s not over when we fall behind."
(Not just a Bradley problem; it was Bruce Arena's too ... after the jump.)
There is some hope. As with all U.S. hope this summer, it goes back to the Confederations Cup. Bradley's men did manage to secure the first goal in four of five matches. But as these were essentially glorified friendlies, that should come with an asterisk.
Of course, none of this is solely a Bradley thing. The whole World Cup effort fell apart four years ago in large part due to early concession of the lead. It took the
They fell behind
Bruce Arena admonished reporters again and again for failing in their critical analysis, in his eyes, to see how these early goals changed the calculus of it all.
Of course, that was beside the point – Arena just didn’t see it that way. The rub should have been: "Why are you falling behind? Isn’t that a symptom of the toxin?"
A lot of
10 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Slovenia won't press the attack
And we should be quicker than their counter. I’m pretty sure we fall behind to England at some point, but they may let us claw back in. Can Algeria challenge us on the ball and exploit some of our weaknesses? They’re a poor mans Egypt (I know they beat them, but the splits aren’t in their favor), and we hammered them. I’m more worried about being able to break down Slovenia tactically than almost anything else in this tournament.
Agree on breaking down Slovenia ...
… but I think that plays right into being vulnerable on the counter. It’s not the lack of speed that could kill the US, it’s the naïveté. It’s not taking care as they should to protect the defensive shape against the counter. We saw it last year in the Confed Cup, and we saw it the other day in the first half against Turkey.
In our formation, who slides over to cover?
I always thought, in a 4-4-2 where the right back has the go-ahead to go forward, the wing immediately runs up the wing (tying up the D, the Right back having tied up the opposite winger), and one of the central mid guys slips in to cover (depending on how defined their roles are, it can be a designated role (makalele) or not). In the US system, is that the Center backs role? the Liberos?
Either the DM or CD
The best example is the first Turkish goal, and as I saw it either the DM on the right (Ricardo Clark) or the CD (DeMerit) needed to slide/drop right once Spector went on his long run to nowhere.
As we saw, neither happened and the only one hustling to get back was Spector himself but of course he was never going to make it. The biggest problem was that DeMerit could not slide right once: a) Goodson committed forward to try and win the ball which left DeMerit alone in the center to mark the Turkish striker, and b) that Clark failed to either mark the ball closely enough to get the Turkish player’s head down or to get back and fill in the marking duties vacated by Spector.
The only way to prevent the goal once Turkey won possession was for DeMerit to immediately drop twenty yards once he read that he was going to be in a 2 v 1 situation. He didn’t. but to be fair, that would have been an amazing read and not something he expect him to see.
For me, Clark’s lack of mobility all night just killed us in the first half. If he plays this way he simply cannot see the field against England or we will get eaten alive.
Demerit
I think that if he had dropped back and closed on Turan more quikly, Turan could have laid it into the two other attackers running up the middle. I thought Demerit did about as well as he could have, giving the circumstances.
Not mediocre. Right about average
Turkey
Clark was really caught out watching the counter on their goal. I have no idea what he was thinking, but he sat there and watched that whole play go by after Turkey won possession. Of course, the entire midfield could be faulted truthfully. In addition to the goal scorer, Turkey had two other players wide open in front of goal. That’s not acceptable.
Not mediocre. Right about average
The whole situation was bad from the beginning
Because Spector ran into the middle with the ball- An absolute non starter in that particular setup. He should run down the line and allow the overlap down, and then cut to the middle and back or in- giving his team numbers both in the box and in recovery. Somebody needs to slide, but the way Spector set it up was partially to blame for the way the break happened in the first place.
ha ha, yeah
I have no idea where Spector thought he was going. I admire his boldness, but the odds of that run working out were pretty low.
Not mediocre. Right about average
The crazy thing is...
…that that’s been the US personality under Bradley. We give up the lead, then win or tie. What concerns me is that the team (and Bradley) seem to be getting a little too comfortable with that.
It certainly makes it more exciting.
But I’d much prefer holding that 2-0 lead.
This is the impression I got during the Confederation Cup
I like international Soccer, but don’t know enough to be that intelligent about the sport. However I still had the feeling that the US had the potential to be a “very good team”, but didn’t seem to be able to put the pieces together enough to really be a “very good team”.
If that makes sense.
Great minds talk about ideas, small minds talk about people" - Eleanor Roosevelt

by 








