United States overall player ratings for World Cup 2010
by Steve Davis on Jun 30, 2010 5:19 PM EDT
Email
Print
Landon Donovan got it done – even if he was couple of toots short of a full vuvuzela performance in that bummer of a Round of 16 loss.
Tim Howard? See above. About the same. He wasn’t exactly SuperTim, and his booboo against
Steve Cherundolo brought the goods in a big way as the Bundesliga man rated as the best
Michael Bradley and Maurice Edu were level as the second-rated
Not only was Jozy Altidore the highest rated American forward, he was the only one who got a cumulative grade beyond a garden-variety 5.
I rated every player for each match for SI.com. (You can find the individual matches here.)
Today, we posted the cumulative average ratings at SI.com.
There aren’t many surprises. It’s about what you’d think, if you were watching objectively.
A couple of mea culpas on the overall exercise after the break …
In retrospect, I probably graded Onyewu too highly against
So, my bad. I mean, didn’t we learn in 6th grade standardized testing to "trust your first instinct?"
So Onyewu has an overall average grade, even though he got pulled from the starting lineup after a second consecutive wobbly outing.
The only other overall rating I see that deserves a second look is Jonathan Bornstein, based on his second appearance. I gave him a 5 against
Thoughts? Did I get anything wrong?
39 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Spot on for Cherundolo
I think his performance against Ghana might’ve been a bit harshly rated.
Howard in my opinion was Super Tim against England and Algeria. And aside from the first Slovenian goal, I thought he was incredible also. I think 8 7 8 4 would be a more fair rating for him. Maybe there was a lot of pressure to perform against Ghana, but I really feel like he kinda fell apart.
Donovan is such a tough subject for me. I will not deny that he is the face of US soccer and is an amazing player. I don’t doubt he’s giving 110% at all times. But how effective he is in the game is really questionable to me. He seemed invisible for just about every first half. It seemed like minutes 60-70 were when he seemed to start bringing it and making a difference on the offensive half. To his credit, I saw him back on D just as much as I saw him up front, so I might not be giving him the credit he deserves for playing the dual-role.
Most everyone else seemed properly rated for the most part. I think Demerit and Bradley deserved a slightly higher score. Bornstein got too highly rated. Onyewu did look like a big ol’ badass, but seemed to be missing the “bite”. Buddle and Gomez were sure disappointing, although it was tough to see them perform with limited minutes.
Any plans for a coach rating?
Stars make plays when they need to be made, and that's what Donovan did
I think there are a number of reasons for him being invisible at times that might not be his fault… Maybe him not being used correctly? Maybe guys like Altidore trying too hard to showcase their own talent? All I know is when the game was on the line, Donovan made things happen.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
I understand that
But throughout the entire Ghana game, most of Algeria, and the first half of Slovenia, he among most of the rest of the the team were non-factors. I’m not singling him out. I just don’t really know if he’s the greatest US player in history the way a lot of people make him out to be.
by chrisperry1983 on Jun 30, 2010 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions
No
To be a non factor and be down 0-2 at half is unacceptable. The boys had to play at 200% to claw their way back. That’s not how it should go down. And it came back to bite us in the ass against Ghana.
by chrisperry1983 on Jul 1, 2010 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
If that is the case
Just about every soccer player in the world sucks,
The defense is what let us down.
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing here
Just because Donovan didn’t score didn’t make him a non-factor. He was a non-factor because he didn’t do much to contribute until much later on.
by chrisperry1983 on Jul 1, 2010 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Ever watch Arshavin play?
He specializes in being a shadow for 78 minutes only to have 3 or 4 moments of brillance and realize how incredibley gifted the man is. And that you actually have a game-breaker like that on your squad with the ability like that.
I guess the only logical answer is I am a complete moron.
Landon is obviously the best player ever. How I missed this earlier is completely unexplainable. I am obviously illiterate as far as soccer goes.
by chrisperry1983 on Jul 1, 2010 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I totally hear you
He’s at the top of a very short list of US players. And considering there are so many European and Latin players better than him, it’s tough to not see a lot of room for improvement.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
Hmm
I thought I laid the sarcasm on pretty thick on that post
by chrisperry1983 on Jul 1, 2010 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I sensed frustration in your sarcasm
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
Didn’t say he was the best player ever. I said the value in Donovan is that he can step up and create someting out of nothing, even when very quiet for most of the match. I’m no American, and do not know the history of American players, but how many in the past had that ability on the big stage? Right now, it seems only Donovan has that ability.
Nah I know
I was being sarcastic and dramatic. It wasn’t directed at you necessarily. I just feel like I’m talking and nobody is understanding what I’m saying.
by chrisperry1983 on Jul 2, 2010 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions
Who would you suggest is better?
It’s sort of slim pickings isn’t it? Sort of sad that he’s “arguably” our best player ever, yet isn’t even currently one of the top 10 in the world.
I’m not sure being the best in US history is really saying that much.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
by southtunnel on Jul 1, 2010 1:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I don't want to get into a debate
and I didn’t actually say he isn’t, I said I’m not sure that he is.
That said, I would consider Reyna, Cherundolo, Dooley, and McBride among the best. Of course, my knowledge really only reaches back to the early-mid 90’s.
I consider Donovan in the top 10. But certainly not the second coming of Jesus as so many writers seem to make him out to be. I think there is always a lot of hype around whoever is currently on the team, and we forget who used to be the man.
by chrisperry1983 on Jul 1, 2010 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't want to get into a debate either
but you are vastly, vastly, vastly underrating Donovan. Reyna has never come close to impacting a team like LD does. McBride comes closest – and I love McBride – but he doesn’t come close to impacting a team like LD does.
It’s not just about the goals, either. It’s everything LD does and is expected to do. We don’t have anyone else like him…and we never have…and it will be a long time before another one comes along. And I’m talking about overall impact: offensively, defensively, the “brains” of the operaton…all the while being THE focus ALL the time by the other team.
And even though it’s not all about the goals – 45 goals and 44 assists is simply amazing. He could retire from the National Team with 50 goals and 50 assists – not many folks in the world do that.
by Soccer Shorts on Jul 1, 2010 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions
How high would you guys rate him among the world's current best?
Just curious because I think a comment was made by English media that none of our players playing their league were even top 20. And therefore we didn’t have a shot against them. Well we see how that turned out.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
New Zealand also drew vs Italy
Does that mean their banker is as good as Pirlo, Chillenni, De Rossi, etc?
Nah, just means any team can get a result on any given day.
How about England's 4 consecutive under-performances?
That doesn’t just happen “any given day”.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
When hasn't England had an 'under-preformance'?
That seems to be the reason/excuse every year. Maybe they are just over-hyped and just not as good as everyone wants to think they should be.
How long does it take to continually ‘under-perform’ befored people start stating those under-perfomances as their standard of play, and anything else better is just an over-acheive?
It’s like Wigan. Sure they can have some great matches here and there. But wow, are they only average for the majority of the season.
It reminds me of the US Dream Team
After inventing basketball and dominating at it in national competition, we slipped and were being beat at our own game. The difference of course is we found a fairly easily found a way back on top last year.
on behalf of tha dirty south: soul food, carolina blue, southern hospitality, and tha queen city
Well, he wasn't able to see regular playing time
on teams like Leverkusen, München and Everton, still i’d say he would be valuable to any average to good Bundesliga team. While the Bundesliga is probably the most balanced of the top leagues, it is certainly not the strongest.
That being said it needs a vastly biased mind to rank him anywhere near a well-meant top 50. I really like him and i wish he would have had the chance to prove himself regularly against top competition.
On the other hand there are some good players who simply don’t fit the top clubs’ environment and blossom elsewhere (Riquelme for example) or show up big just as an international (see Podolski, Lukas) or simply don’t feel comfortable living in a different country. I suspect the latter is the case for Donovan.
player ratings michael bradley
Why is Michael Bradley given any defense whatsoever for his performance? He may be great in the future, but he was completely out of his element in this cup. If anyone simply goes back and looks at the games, you can objectively see any of the following results & give him a C, D or F (I opt for a D. But, there is no way he would be higher than a C):
• Track his running: abysmal for a CM
• Track his touches: negatives far outweigh the positives.
• Grade his fitness level: not even close to match fit (not to mention fit for a tournament)
• Watch his play when the opposing team has possession anywhere in our defensive 1/3 or middle 1/3 of the field (especially from 35th minute on): constantly passes off his marks for no apparent reason; constantly turns his head & ball watches as his marks make through runs behind him; constantly wonders the pitch without purpose; he does not even step into opposing teams’ passing lanes.
• England’s goal: look at his positioning – awful; look at his decision making before the 1-2 from England – awful; it’s not just the final mistake from a player that counts – it’s what lead up to that point. Bradley was a huge reason for the goal.
• Ghana goals: where was Bradley’s pressure in the mid to not let a Ghana player play a through ball? It doesn’t exist because he hardly ever gave defensive pressure to the other teams.
• Huge mistake ~ Pass to Clark before Ghana’s goal: Clark’s touch was horrid; however, Bradley’s pass to Clark before it happened was a "hospital ball", it was a panicked & amateurish pass. Clark should have stepped to the ball, cleared it down the field & then laid into Bradley for the pass. But Clark did not, & I’m not defending Clark whatsoever, but seriously, at that level, what in the world was Bradley doing when he lead Clark into a defender with a soft pass (especially in that part of the field)?
• Why did other teams not ever pressure Bradley when he was on the ball? Why did they instead opt to focus on our other players? It’s because they did not respect him. You can see the defenses collapse onto our other players without worry as to what Bradley was going to do with the ball.
• Decision making: at times very good; but at more times, very bad. Why does he pass the ball to marked players when the opposing team has backed off & given him free reign for 20 yards? Bradley was hardly ever an offensive threat & at no times was he a defensive threat. He never played with confidence, which only hurt us & helped the other teams defend.
• Lastly, a simple question: Why were Dempsey & Donovan constantly cleaning up in the central mid area? It is not because they were out of position.
I challenge anyone to look back at the games and find that this grade for him is not correct. The grading system above is purely objective (I have no reason whatsoever to bash him) and done in a standard FIFA or US A grading system. I do not understand why hardly any of the media is not bashing Michael Bradley’s play. Plain & simple: we must have better midfield play from him (or someone) if we are to succeed. I hope he has learned a lesson & gains some confidence, because I do think he has tremendous potential, but he was not ready for this stage. Bottom line: you can’t be successful in this game without a strong central mid presence. We have to be honest when we talk about this team, players & coach – otherwise we will be stuck in the past.
by lolavons on Jun 30, 2010 6:53 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Who would you have put in instead
Not sure if we have a lot of depth there. We aren’t England who can just toss out a player from any position (except of coarse goalie).
I think for the most part these were the best players the US had to offer. The defense was just bad and cost us a deeper run. Oddly there wasn’t really any obvious one player to blame, they just couldn’t get it together as a team. Some of the space they gave against Slovenia was ridiculous and the numerous break downs were inexplicable with the talent on the field. Its not like this just showed up in this tournament, this has been going on for some time.
depth
That’s part of the problem – is MB the best CM in this country? If he is, that’s trouble; if he is not, it’s still trouble. I’m not trying to bash one player & blame only him, but he seems to be getting decent marks when in reality it was a subpar performance by a CM. No opposing team ever showed respect to our mid play – it’s a problem that must be addressed.
Well he was our best striker
But I agree, as a midfielder (which I acknowledge was 99% of his position) , he just wasn’t that good at that position compared to the other teams in the better half in this competition.
But at least he is one of those guys who you can say, even though he sucked, he gained some good experience we can use four years from now (but hopefully off the bench).
Hopefully it will better him
I agree; I do think (hope) he will become a very good player, I think he has tremondous potential. But, he was completely out of his element – he just wasn’t ready for that role. Hence, why he ran all over the place, but hardly had any positive aspects of defense or offensive play – he was “lost”, so, he just ran. But hopefully, the experience will help him & he will give other teams something to be concerned about in our mid during the next cup. We have to find a threat from CM play, it controls so much of the game & affects every single position on the field.
In two more years
It takes a couple of yrs to recover from acl, but assuming he does Geoff Cameron should be available in midfield
Lots wrong here but I will keep it to one
You say that Michael Bradley should be rated on his fitness ok well how can we do that. One way to track fitness is to see how much a player covers in a game. If we look at FIFA’s numbers for this guess who has covered the most distance over the first four games. Oh yeah it is Michael Bradley, and I should add that Donovan is second, so I think that also answers for him a bit.
Here is the site, quite interesting http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/statistics/players/distanceandspeed.html
by vivalosburros on Jul 1, 2010 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Bradley's fitness
That is only one way to track it. The problem is that he ran around doing nothing; if you track his running, it will be seen that it is without purpose – he wonders. He did “run” the most – but, there was no purpose. Part of grading the player on his “runs” is also to grade what he is accomplishing – just because he is moving around does not mean he is doing his job. The FIFA numbers you speak of track “fitness”, not play. I want to know what his purpose was. Look at him when he moves, he “wonders” – he runs up & down, but does not put any defensive pressure on anyone, nor does he take advantage of offensive space – he takes a “holding” midfield player literally. For example, he would run great distances back, only to turn his head continually & let the very man he was watching cut right behind him without communicating to anyone or adjusting – it was just running. If I track a players “fitness” I will track his running, but if I track a player’s play, I will track his running and combine it with his score for play – that equals “match fit” – it’s not just if you can run all day long – it’s running for a purpose.
one more thing to lots wrong here
I should have put track his runs “with purpose” on my grade of him because I know several people that argue for Bradley’s play just because he “covers” so much ground. I would never argue that he doesn’t "cover" ground because I tracked his play for continuing education – I know he "covers" ground. But, it does not matter how much ground he “covers” – it is what he is doing while covering that ground. However, I have yet to know anyone with a soccer background that defends his play, unless you are the first (not trying to knock you). Which is fine if you truly believe he did a good job at CM, I’m not going to try & proselytize you – but I have to ask, what exactly did he do? Was he a threat to other teams when we were in possession (or, when he was in possession)? Was he a threat on the defensive side of the ball? Were there more positives than negatives in his play? Was our central mid play equal to anyone we faced? Look, he did some decent things & he has potential & I’m not blaming him for everything, but, I don’t see how anyone can grade him higher than a C (a 3 or 4 on a number scale). We got killed in the central mid role in all thirds of the field – that is why I’d give him a D.
Interesting metric
Spain, those passing-game artists, don’t show up in that list until the 18th spot (Xabi Alonso) and the next one is in 29th spot (Xavi). Brazil’s first representative on that list (Gilberto Silva) doesn’t show up until the 22d spot. Of the quarterfinalists, only Ghana, Paraguay and Germany have representatives in the first 10, and two of those are underdogs.
Compare in more detail two midfield players mentioned here who play roughly similar roles on their respective teams: Bradley and Spain’s Xavi. Bradley covered 51.69 km. Xavi covered 41.91, in 54 fewer minutes. (390 vs 336). Yet even though Xavi played fewer minutes and traveled nearly 10 km less than Bradley, Xavi matched Bradley’s travels in possession (20.71 vs 20.24, respectively).
Now, it doesn’t explain what “in posession” entails (team or player? I think team…) but I think what this means is that fitness is not a paramount issue when you’re not constantly chasing the game. In other words better teams have better players who run around less, and move with more purpose. This directly supports Mr. Davis’ earlier post addressing the predictable calls for better athletes.
...metric
Yes, exactly – movement with purpose. Bradley ran around with no purpose, therefore he "covered" more ground because he was "chasing & wandering" all over the place. He actually spun in circles numerous times in our middle & defensive 1/3 of the field – literally, actually spun around in stationary circles because he did not know where to go.
Imagine if we put a champion marathon runner (non-soccer player) on our team & I line the sideline with FIFA & US licensed coaches to grade him:
• I explain to him what the proper thirds of the field are and how to "stay with play"
• I then tell him what the vertical thirds of the field are & how to "stay with play".
• I promise you, he will "stay with play" (it’s not that hard to do if you’re fit; it’s just running to certain spots pertaining to play of the ball).
• I also promise you, he would run more than anyone else on that pitch – for either team (& maybe run more than some players combined) – but, that doesn’t mean he is playing well; it actually can mean the exact opposite.
• And I promise you in the end, every single one of the coaches would give him an "excellent" for fitness level & a "poor" on play – just because you can run forever doesn’t mean you can play.
Bottom line: smart players have positive running, therefore they actually typically will run a little less than someone like Bradley, who runs with no purpose. It’s all about what you do with you’re running. For example, Donovan runs all over the place (a lot of it is because he has to make up for others lack of play), but, he has a purpose – he is an offensive threat & he clearly is a defensive threat – he makes positive movement with purpose. I’m not trying to make an argument for Donovan’s play being "the best" – I’m stating that his running has purpose, you may not like what he does when he gets there, but he is doing something besides just running around & turning in circles; he defends, he attacks, he steps into passing lanes, etc. Bradley runs & passes off responsibility, does not play with confidence, does not apply defensive pressure or attacking pressure – he is just simply lost & it was obvious.
You simply cannot use "ground cover" as your grading tool; it has to be combined with other factors, otherwise Kenya would be world cup champs.
Good insight, but might be more going on
I think you’re probably on to something when you point out that Bradley runs more than he should need to. I think he, like all US players, still thinks a little too much with his legs. That said, I think there may be some holes in your logic.
First and foremost, Xavi’s lesser playing time makes a big difference. If he’d played the same 390 minutes as Bradley and run consistently throughout, he’d have run 48.64 km. That’s a reasonably large difference between the two players over the course of four games, but one that I think is easily explained by non-Bradley factors.
The biggest is that Bradley plays for the USMNT and Xavi plays for Spain. When you’re Xavi and have Iniesta and company holding and passing the ball you can be all kinds of efficient with your runs. When you’re MB and A) you’ve got two or three teamates on the pitch who can hold the ball even remotely well (Donovan and Dempsey, plus Feilhaber when on the field) and B) you play on a team that depends on willy-nilly counter-attacks, you’re gonna run a lot when you have possession.
Another thing is that Xavi has nowhere near the defensive resopnsibilities that Bradley has. He can afford to save himself for runs when his team has possession more than Bradley can.
Don’t get me wrong; I think MB needs to be play smarter sometimes and could sometimes be more efficient. But I think Xavi is an inappropriate comparison. Bradley is a two-way midfielder with major mop-up responsibilities on a team that makes a lot of messes and asks him to then support 60-70 yard counter-attacks.
I hate those posts that just say "I agree"
but I agree. Wholeheartedly.
by Soccer Shorts on Jul 1, 2010 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
You missed one
I think Bob Bradley needs to be rated as well. I’m not looking to bash him, because I’m really torn on him and his future. There’s aspects of what he has brought to the table that I really liked, his calm demeanor and stoic, been there composure. But I knew we were in trouble when Findley and Clark made the starting line up in that last game. I don’t know what it is about every U.S. coach that causes them to clinch up in the World Cup and go against what works in favor of what they believe to be a safer tactic, hoping not to lose rather than trying to win.
But you should bash Bob Bradley
Forget arguing if Bob Bradley chose the right team. Let’s say for argument sake that he was perfect in his starting line-ups and the selection of his team (even though strong arguments suggest otherwise). Let’s just focus on the following:
Algeria game:
• Held onto a 3rd sub & was about to go home with it in his pocket until Donovan scored. Can you imagine going home with a 3rd sub that you didn’t even use?
• Since he held onto his 3rd sub, where was the sub after Donovan’s goal to waste time? We have to be one of the only teams (if not the only team) to ever not "waste time" by utilizing a sub toward the end of a game at that level (& before anyone starts ~ it is part of the game; everyone does it – Brazil, Germany, Italy, etc.)
• Running 2 forwards after Donovan’s goal: if you’re not going to sub, at the very least you should be at midfield screaming for adjustments to go one forward & tactically change your defense. The team doesn’t need to see a "stoic" manager on the sideline holding back a smile & giving "low-fives" as if the game was over. The team needed instruction & a manager reminding them that their job was not done yet.
Ghana game:
• Sticking with players that were obviously tired.
• Subbing Gomez (not knocking Gomez), an offensive sub (& his last sub), at the start of overtime? We were the better team (technically); we have one of the best keepers in the world; we have better shooters ~ we take our chances in PK’s. That doesn’t mean to sit back & play for the tie, but, it does mean you tell your team they have one job: "don’t get scored on, no matter how ugly it gets, just get the ball out ~ if we score, that’s a bonus". You remind them, "that we will beat Ghana in PK’s if we have to – don’t panic". Ghana is the one who may want to make an offensive sub, because they probably think, "now’s our chance" (they don’t want to go to PK’s with a better team; they want to end it). If Bradley makes a sub, it should be a defensive sub since we were tired AND we can beat them in PK’s ~ once again, better keeper; better shooters. Bradley’s offensive sub showed he was scared – not bold & "going for it".
All Games:
• His subs and tactical changes were identical in every game ~ amateurish; absolutely unprofessional managing. We do not have the exact same tactical problems in every game ~ it was shocking to see a national team coach sub like it was rec soccer.
• His team was not fit. You can’t blame the altitude (& the altitude really is not a good excuse anyway) – look at Germany, Brazil, Mexico, Netherlands, etc. – those players did not look nearly as tired as us. You can’t take a team to that level of play and not have them match fit.
Bob Bradley was completely out of his league. Forget all the arguments about who should play ~ it’s simple: his managing of the team was shocking.
Not sure what you were smoking when you did these ratings
But Demsey setting up the opportunities for over half of our goals scored (and actually counted) makes his rating seem absurd. Not sure if these are ratings based on performance or expectations, but I’m not sure what you expected of Demsey, not to mention there were two penalties against him in the box in the Algeria game that went uncalled.
All that could be forgiven if it weren’t for the fact that you gave Altidore who had a God awful World Cup a higher score. I’m not sure if you get the point of a striker, but it isn’t to fuck around in the middle bobling the ball around to lull the defense to sleep and set up the wingers for a fast break on a counter. A failure to score in every game is a failure.
Also, not sure how you could give any defender over a 5. I know they didn’t all suck, but the defense plays as a unit, or they suck, their is no in between.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
