Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Borgetti--
Márquez-- 
Borgetti is a pretty typical US type of player- not a lot of skills, but good in the air and tactically sound. Marquez is something more special than anything the US has ever produced.Mexico has a youngster from their U17 WC championship (or did they lose in the championship game?) from a couple years back who was the player of the tourney- simply amazing player (albeit at the U17 level) who I think played today for Mexico.
Borgetti--Márquez--
Borgetti is no better than mnay US strikers. His foot skills are worse than McBrides and his mobility is very weak. Gooch turned him into his personal ##### during qualifying which showed that his his strength and size are almost useless when match against some one of equal ability. All in all a good striker but I would not take him over any of the US strikers right now and considering how average I think Twellman, EJ, and Ching are, that should tell you something.Marquez on the other hand is a class above. Only Reyna for the US came close to his class and Reyna was simply not healthy enough to match Marquez's quality.El FLoppo, I think you are referring to the kid I was asking about earlier for Mexico. I believe his name is Giovanni Dos Santos and is on the books of Barcelona, although not yet allowed to play due to age restrictions which won't lift until he hits 18. Like you said, he is suppose to be something very special.
I don't know that they're regressing (although they've looked pretty horrid in the Gold Cup). They've always been a good, not great squad- capable of playing dazzling stuff one day and then embarrassing (usually vs US) the next. But as just posted- their U17s won the 05' WC, and deserved it. Those guys are still young, but they were many leagues over what the US sent to that tourney. Mexico's future is very bright- don't fret for them, or the character/competition-building ###-whomping the US will be in store for for many years to come.
Yeah- that kid was something special... but I actually am remembering (or misremembering) a different player. Dos Santos played in the MF, IIRC (and again- was brilliant)- the guy I'm thinking of played up front and was a complete terror both on and off the ball. Amazing pace, incredible skills and strenght (for a U17) and a nose and drive for the goal... can't remember his name- Vasquez? Cripes... no idea. I think he wore the no. 9 at the WC.eta: maybe it was Dos Santos... my brain- ees no workey.
Any thoughts about this?El Floppo said:Don't forget that wasn't the real T&T team- just a bunch of scrubs filling in.And sadly- no matter how bad Guatemala and T&T looked- they still controlled posession for stretches against the US, and each of them had legitimate scoring opportunities that would have drastically changed the complexion of each game had they gone in.I also feel that the US was the weaker skilled team each game. They won both games through tactics and fitness, and enough skills to finish a couple of scoring opps- but not because we possess any one player capable of winning a game or creating opportunities for himself.This is completely embarrassing to me, in this day and age. We don't have a single forward who is willing to take a player on, or capable of holding defenders off the ball for more than a touch. Justin Mapp showed a willingness to go at guys, as did Donovan when on the flanks... dunno- maybe this is a tactic by the US to only try and beat guys on the flanks from MF and have the forwards take 2 touches maximum. It pisses me off.
Yeah, my thought is that we just aren't as good as we'd like to believe. I know people don't like to say it, but there is really no one right now that can be said to be talented enough for a top 30ish European team besides our keepers. More than anything we're between generations right now. It looks like we have quality younger guys in Feilhaber, Bradley, Simek, Spector, Mapp, etc, but even then none of them have truly made "it" ("it" being a regular first 11 starter for their European club team) and none of the older generation (i.e. guys 24-30) have developed the way they should. At this point in time all of Gooch/ Beasley/Donovan era should have made a dent in Europe, but for whatever reason haven't. The only two guys have been Boca and Howard and that's a keeper and a CB. At this point in the US National Team's development, for our team to be truly able to blow these teams out with regularity, our best players need to be play first choice starters in the top 6 European leagues. Playing in MLS is all well and good for developing the team's depth (which is what we've seen), but for whatever reason, the league is poor at developing anybody creative (and I'm not smart enough to know why).Any thoughts about this?El Floppo said:Don't forget that wasn't the real T&T team- just a bunch of scrubs filling in.And sadly- no matter how bad Guatemala and T&T looked- they still controlled posession for stretches against the US, and each of them had legitimate scoring opportunities that would have drastically changed the complexion of each game had they gone in.I also feel that the US was the weaker skilled team each game. They won both games through tactics and fitness, and enough skills to finish a couple of scoring opps- but not because we possess any one player capable of winning a game or creating opportunities for himself.This is completely embarrassing to me, in this day and age. We don't have a single forward who is willing to take a player on, or capable of holding defenders off the ball for more than a touch. Justin Mapp showed a willingness to go at guys, as did Donovan when on the flanks... dunno- maybe this is a tactic by the US to only try and beat guys on the flanks from MF and have the forwards take 2 touches maximum. It pisses me off.
I have a feeling that my question is going to show just how little I know about international soccer, but would Freddie Adu be an option?I'm not sure if he would play for the US in international competition or not, or if he's even a striker. I just know that he was the "next Pele" when he was about 14.
He's not a striker plus he's going to be at the U20 WC trying to impress European suitors.
Hi Sammy. I had a first hand experience as to why the US doesn't develope a lot of creative players.Yeah, my thought is that we just aren't as good as we'd like to believe. I know people don't like to say it, but there is really no one right now that can be said to be talented enough for a top 30ish European team besides our keepers. More than anything we're between generations right now. It looks like we have quality younger guys in Feilhaber, Bradley, Simek, Spector, Mapp, etc, but even then none of them have truly made "it" ("it" being a regular first 11 starter for their European club team) and none of the older generation (i.e. guys 24-30) have developed the way they should. At this point in time all of Gooch/ Beasley/Donovan era should have made a dent in Europe, but for whatever reason haven't. The only two guys have been Boca and Howard and that's a keeper and a CB. At this point in the US National Team's development, for our team to be truly able to blow these teams out with regularity, our best players need to be play first choice starters in the top 6 European leagues. Playing in MLS is all well and good for developing the team's depth (which is what we've seen), but for whatever reason, the league is poor at developing anybody creative (and I'm not smart enough to know why).Any thoughts about this?El Floppo said:Don't forget that wasn't the real T&T team- just a bunch of scrubs filling in.And sadly- no matter how bad Guatemala and T&T looked- they still controlled posession for stretches against the US, and each of them had legitimate scoring opportunities that would have drastically changed the complexion of each game had they gone in.
I also feel that the US was the weaker skilled team each game. They won both games through tactics and fitness, and enough skills to finish a couple of scoring opps- but not because we possess any one player capable of winning a game or creating opportunities for himself.
This is completely embarrassing to me, in this day and age. We don't have a single forward who is willing to take a player on, or capable of holding defenders off the ball for more than a touch. Justin Mapp showed a willingness to go at guys, as did Donovan when on the flanks... dunno- maybe this is a tactic by the US to only try and beat guys on the flanks from MF and have the forwards take 2 touches maximum. It pisses me off.
no matter how many times I read this, it still hurts.Hi Sammy. I had a first hand experience as to why the US doesn't develope a lot of creative players.Yeah, my thought is that we just aren't as good as we'd like to believe. I know people don't like to say it, but there is really no one right now that can be said to be talented enough for a top 30ish European team besides our keepers. More than anything we're between generations right now. It looks like we have quality younger guys in Feilhaber, Bradley, Simek, Spector, Mapp, etc, but even then none of them have truly made "it" ("it" being a regular first 11 starter for their European club team) and none of the older generation (i.e. guys 24-30) have developed the way they should. At this point in time all of Gooch/ Beasley/Donovan era should have made a dent in Europe, but for whatever reason haven't. The only two guys have been Boca and Howard and that's a keeper and a CB. At this point in the US National Team's development, for our team to be truly able to blow these teams out with regularity, our best players need to be play first choice starters in the top 6 European leagues. Playing in MLS is all well and good for developing the team's depth (which is what we've seen), but for whatever reason, the league is poor at developing anybody creative (and I'm not smart enough to know why).Any thoughts about this?El Floppo said:Don't forget that wasn't the real T&T team- just a bunch of scrubs filling in.And sadly- no matter how bad Guatemala and T&T looked- they still controlled posession for stretches against the US, and each of them had legitimate scoring opportunities that would have drastically changed the complexion of each game had they gone in.
I also feel that the US was the weaker skilled team each game. They won both games through tactics and fitness, and enough skills to finish a couple of scoring opps- but not because we possess any one player capable of winning a game or creating opportunities for himself.
This is completely embarrassing to me, in this day and age. We don't have a single forward who is willing to take a player on, or capable of holding defenders off the ball for more than a touch. Justin Mapp showed a willingness to go at guys, as did Donovan when on the flanks... dunno- maybe this is a tactic by the US to only try and beat guys on the flanks from MF and have the forwards take 2 touches maximum. It pisses me off.
My daughter (who is now 11) was a very talented player at a very early age. She was scoring 3 or 4 goals a game at the U7 and U8 levels and was quickly moved up an age group and, eventually, to a club team.
I usually go to outr local park and work with her on ball-handling and dribbling, and she was able to do advanced moves, like scissors, garrinchas, and other "fancy" foot moves.
When she was ten, she joined the club team, which was comprised of all girls who had been together since age eight.
In her second or third game, she had a one-on-one against the sweeper from the other team. She did a step-over to the left and tried to use the outside of her foot to push it right. The defender didn't go for the fake and made a nice tackle to knock teh ball away from my daughter. One of the parents from out team, yelled very loudly onto the field that she should "Quit the fancy footwork and stick to the basics". She was totally embarrassed and went the rest of the season without trying one move. Everything was just very basic. It's like she regressed two years and was afraid to try anything that she knew.
I approached her coach after that game and asked him what his policy was on parents yelling things onto the field during games, and he knew exactly what I was referring to. He said that he certainly doesn't encourage parents to coach from teh sidelines, but that he believed in the basics and team tactics and agreed with the parent that there was no place for the "fancy footwork". It was later announced that the team was getting a new trainer/coach or my daughter wouldn't be playing there, anymore.
Now, I'm not sure how my story relates to the rest of the youth soccer in the US, but if kids are discouraged from using their moves for fear of failing or getting reprimanded, it would certainly explain why we have no ballhandlers like Ronaldhino or Christiano Ronaldo coming from our feeder programs.
And I know this goes on all over the country. Coaches who care more about winning at age 13 than letting a player develop his skill.
Good and very accurate post.Personally I think Landon is more than talented enough but for what ever reason he does not want to play in Europe.
Well none of those guys are on top sides either. Hannover, Fulham, and Reading are all fine and good, but its not like Germany and England build their national teams from players on those club teams. Until we have a half a dozen or so guys playing top-tier soccer on top teams on a consistent basis, we just won't be that good on an international basis. This is also one of the reasons I'm becoming more and more dissappointed we went with Bradley. It's pretty evident if you step back and look at the state of the program that something is wrong in the development process (and that includes MLS/sending kids to Europe/etc.) and that someone who knows what they are doing needs to be hired. It's also pretty evident to me looking back over the past 5-7 years that MLS coaches in general are pretty bad at identifying and developing whatever young American talent they are given. Promoting Bradley (granted he is the best there was of the MLS coaches, but that may just mean he's the best of the worst) did nothing to change that dynamic.
I agree but I was just basing my comments on your algorithm "but even then none of them have truly made "it" ("it" being a regular first 11 starter for their European club team)"
no matter how many times I read this, it still hurts.Hi Sammy. I had a first hand experience as to why the US doesn't develope a lot of creative players.Yeah, my thought is that we just aren't as good as we'd like to believe. I know people don't like to say it, but there is really no one right now that can be said to be talented enough for a top 30ish European team besides our keepers. More than anything we're between generations right now. It looks like we have quality younger guys in Feilhaber, Bradley, Simek, Spector, Mapp, etc, but even then none of them have truly made "it" ("it" being a regular first 11 starter for their European club team) and none of the older generation (i.e. guys 24-30) have developed the way they should. At this point in time all of Gooch/ Beasley/Donovan era should have made a dent in Europe, but for whatever reason haven't. The only two guys have been Boca and Howard and that's a keeper and a CB. At this point in the US National Team's development, for our team to be truly able to blow these teams out with regularity, our best players need to be play first choice starters in the top 6 European leagues. Playing in MLS is all well and good for developing the team's depth (which is what we've seen), but for whatever reason, the league is poor at developing anybody creative (and I'm not smart enough to know why).Any thoughts about this?El Floppo said:Don't forget that wasn't the real T&T team- just a bunch of scrubs filling in.And sadly- no matter how bad Guatemala and T&T looked- they still controlled posession for stretches against the US, and each of them had legitimate scoring opportunities that would have drastically changed the complexion of each game had they gone in.
I also feel that the US was the weaker skilled team each game. They won both games through tactics and fitness, and enough skills to finish a couple of scoring opps- but not because we possess any one player capable of winning a game or creating opportunities for himself.
This is completely embarrassing to me, in this day and age. We don't have a single forward who is willing to take a player on, or capable of holding defenders off the ball for more than a touch. Justin Mapp showed a willingness to go at guys, as did Donovan when on the flanks... dunno- maybe this is a tactic by the US to only try and beat guys on the flanks from MF and have the forwards take 2 touches maximum. It pisses me off.
My daughter (who is now 11) was a very talented player at a very early age. She was scoring 3 or 4 goals a game at the U7 and U8 levels and was quickly moved up an age group and, eventually, to a club team.
I usually go to outr local park and work with her on ball-handling and dribbling, and she was able to do advanced moves, like scissors, garrinchas, and other "fancy" foot moves.
When she was ten, she joined the club team, which was comprised of all girls who had been together since age eight.
In her second or third game, she had a one-on-one against the sweeper from the other team. She did a step-over to the left and tried to use the outside of her foot to push it right. The defender didn't go for the fake and made a nice tackle to knock teh ball away from my daughter. One of the parents from out team, yelled very loudly onto the field that she should "Quit the fancy footwork and stick to the basics". She was totally embarrassed and went the rest of the season without trying one move. Everything was just very basic. It's like she regressed two years and was afraid to try anything that she knew.
I approached her coach after that game and asked him what his policy was on parents yelling things onto the field during games, and he knew exactly what I was referring to. He said that he certainly doesn't encourage parents to coach from teh sidelines, but that he believed in the basics and team tactics and agreed with the parent that there was no place for the "fancy footwork". It was later announced that the team was getting a new trainer/coach or my daughter wouldn't be playing there, anymore.
Now, I'm not sure how my story relates to the rest of the youth soccer in the US, but if kids are discouraged from using their moves for fear of failing or getting reprimanded, it would certainly explain why we have no ballhandlers like Ronaldhino or Christiano Ronaldo coming from our feeder programs.
Had Clint Dempsey ended up in one of about a million different teams growing up, they would have told him the exact same thing your daughter was told. Luckily he landed with a coach who could tell the difference.
.... 
.... Terrible, but all too familar story Junior. I genuinely hope you get your daughter someplace where she can learn and have fun while being allowed to fail while trying to improve herself (and her team...).
While that's sort of true in NYC, the funny thing is that there are plenty of fields in places like North Carolina, but the only people who tried to use them with Hispanics. Well, a lot of people didn't want "those people" in their neighborhood so they basically forbade any pickup soccer. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. As an aside, in Manhattan there are a decent number of synthetic fields, but they all get used for grown-up leagues (like UrbanSoccer). Some of them have some pickup, but nothing a bunch of 8-13 would play in.
oh- I'm not saying there aren't fields out there all over the US (and yeah- I saw something about some Southern towns closing off fields for open play due to "brown" people using them for pickup games).I've played pickup on and off my entire adult life- here in NYC (upper west, central park, east river), out in SF- anywhere I am where I see people playing. But in all that time and in all those places, I've not once seen a bunch of kids playing on their own. Not once.
Unfortunately, I think it's that way across sports. Basketball is about the only pickup game that thrives. Everybody has their kids in strucutured sports. I swear my kids are the only ones in the neighborhood who play wiffleball, football, street hockey on their own in the yard.
I see kids playing football a lot here in NYC without coaches etc- seems to be groups of buddies getting together for it the way we used to when I was a kid.Baseball? The occasional wiffleball game with a couple of kids, or kids at the fields playing catch- but it's a tough sport to just "play". My dad used to tell me stories about Stickball on the streets in brooklyn, but I've never seen it in my lifetime.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.And I don't know if you ever read Pele's autobiography- amazing book- but they were playing with grapefruit, balled up paper and whatever else they could their hands/feet on when they didn't have a real ball to play with.Futbolito sounds like it's Futsal- 4 and a gk on a basketball sized court- but without use of the walls ala MISL.I've been really tempted to try and get in touch with that NYC investor and volunteer my services in trying to get fields here in NYC and promoting the idea to innercity youths along with the typical middle class kids that already play organized ball. Maybe with a baby two weeks away, now is not that best time.
I am drawing a blank here. The two coaching names that come to mind are Joe Maronne from UCONN or the guy from University of San Fran (Denescro?)Who was the coach you are referring to?
You are exactly right, El Floppo.The fact that my daughter was told, at a very early age, not to be creative with the ball, is one of the main problems of US soccer. We are producing a bunch of cookie-cutter players.The league my daughter now plays in, which is a club-level league, doesn't even post scores on tehir websites until U13. Hell, I remember being a nine year old in Little League and having the scoreboard in centerfield showing all the players, people in the stands, and people driving by, who ws the better team..whethjer it was 4-3 or 21-2.When did it become a bad thing to teach youth that winning is good and losing is bad? Whne did we decide that every player should play exactly teh same, whether you're a freakishly talented child or a dweeb who doesn't really want to be out there?Next year will be the first year that my daughter will be old enough to qualify for the Olympic Development Program. I've already had a parent bending my ear and telling me that she wonders if any of the parents on ourt team will be selfish enough to put their child above what's good for the team and try out. I just politely nodded, but you can bet your ### that I know of one kid who I'm more concerned about her individual development than the good of some U13 club team.
I will likely get skewered for this but I believe the more "moms" get involved with sports, the more we get the "everyone's a winner" mentality. I fear for the current generation of kids when they get out in the real world and suddenly realize "hey, I am not being treated the same as everyone else no matter my performance"
I'm sure there's some truth to that...it's funny because even at the U-13 level in something like baseball it certainly appears to an outsider (i.e. me) that the competition and individualism is amped up in that sport on the travelling teams. Maybe it's the nature of the sport where baseball is a bunch of individual activities, but the difference is striking (and yeah I know at the lower levels Little League is played with a continous lineup and no score is kept, but at some point that gets left behind). It may also have something to do with the ultimate "prize" for the top athletes in each sport. In baseball, even the marginal major leaguer makes millions while the goal for many in soccer is getting a college scholarship.
This was a strange group- Canada beats CR, Guadeloupe beats Canada, CR beats Guadeloupe... haven't seen any of the games, but very suprising that CR is giving up points and that Guadeloupe gained points.
Hopefully the "pressure" will be off the US and they'll just play vs El S tonight instead of worring about results. I'm really hoping to see players take chances and go for it, but I'm guessing with the amount of youth on the team that they'll still be more worried about screwing up and losing their spot in on the roster than impressing enough to solidify that same spot.
Have any of you guys seen Mexico play this cup? Bewildering how off they look, IMO. They seem like they can just decide to turn it on, march down the field and get opportunities... but that "on" toggle isn't getting activated much so far.
Totally agree- what a waste that would be. Better yet would be for Mexico to not even make it to the knockout stage.
This is a tangent to that thought (and I am inclined to agree with you, Andy):Between the "soccer is for Euro sissies" thought of the 70s and early 80s, the "soccer Mom-ification" of the suburban, middle-class routes of the sport in the US and the US women's team WC victory on home soil- I think soccer as a sport has been perpetuated here in the US psyche as something for girls- not for our best boy athletes.I noticed an ESPN commercial for MLS recently showed a bunch of guys flying into tackles, getting in eachother's faces etc. mebbe as a response to that perception and to try and lure in guys who don't know much about the sport but think of it as girly. THoughts?
As myopic as your thoughts on this have been JB (not a negative criticism- just all based around your daughter's experience)- you're pretty dead on.I'd add that now that we FINALLY have some pro soccer for our youth to watch- either live or on TV- we owe them a better product. And I don't necessarily mean winners- I mean teams and players going all out in every way and not just trying to avoid losing the game or their spot on the roster. That kids finally can look up and see that they can be a pro soccer player (not an option when I was playing- unless you went to Europe... which is my only regret not doing
) means kids will be emulating our current batch of pros. Or hopefully the current batch of Foreign pros.Part of that better product includes the quality of production on the games- a personal pet peeve that always has me by the end of all games not announced by Bretos and Sullivan/Wynalda. Play-by-Play guys have to know the game (#### you Dave O'Brien) as do the director/producers/camera-men who are creating the show for us. Yellow Cards are important. The play leading up to the goal or goal attempt is important. Little skirmishes that incite the emotions of a game are important. Show us replays of those when the ball is out of play- not during an attack- cut away from the replay if need be. Learn how to time close-ups on action and cut to over-view when the pass is made. Learn the frigging rules; know what play gets called for fouls. Random repeated face time on Landon Donovan while the play is continuing elsewhere is not a good idea.
Good outcome, how did they look?
You're absolutely right, Floppo. Any perceptions I have made are based solely on my experiences with my daughter over the last five years. The first soccer game i ever watched was her first game of U6. I certainly don't want to come off as a know-it-all. It's been quite a ride seeing what goes on as the level of competitiveness goes up. The politics are unbelievable!I hope that there are good coaches, nationwide, who encourage creativity and experimentation on the ball, even if it means a few team losses along the way. A child may fail ten times at doing an advanced move before heor she finally nails it and reaps the benefits. The key to their development is how their trainers deal with those failures.It would be nice to, someday, see a player like Ronaldhino or C. Ronaldo emerge from the US feeder system- a player who appears to be a magician with the ball. For that to happen, youth coaches and parents have to encourage them to be different, even if they struggle, some, along the way.
Real nice win for the US, last night.Obviuosly, an inferior opponent goes a long way in making a team look good, but there were a lot of encouraging things that surfaced last night.Ching and Twellman really seemed to be on the same page in the second half. If those two can become formidable international players, they would join Dempsey, Beasley, and Donovan to give us quite a few scoring options.Gooch also seemed to finally get his head out of his ###. If he can learn to harness that aggressiveness a little, while still remaining a stout defender, it will improve us 100%.
Junior- I really don't like my use of the word "myopic"- it carries way too many negative connotations (which weren't intended), and for that I apologize. You have been very perceptive about the state of things using your daughter's experiences as a forming ground for those ideas. As I await my own first kid's birth (due the 30th)... wait- did I say "kid"? I meant "future USMNT superstar"- it's incredibly informative to me to hear your stories and your insight. So- apologies, and keep it up!
At this point in time, I can't understand any US opponent with Interantional fitness capabilities bunkering down the way ES did last night. I know they needed a result and felt outmatched- but the US clearly plays worse offensively and defensively when pressured. Bunkering down just buys a little time and takes your own players out of the game- 
Well, lucky for you, I don't know what myopic means. Therefore, I couldn't possibly take offense.
Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.A few comments, based on your observations.You're right about Demsey's no-look pass. It was sick! He passed outside to the left, with the inside of his left foot! That seems like it would be hard to do standing still, let alone while running.
If you guys get a chance to see the 4th goal... it was really a thing of beauty. Beautifully placed and weighted passing out of the back, players taking guys on on the flank, sick no-look pass from Dempsey to set up Beasley who calmly slotted the ball home (after missing at least 5 sitters previously).
A really solid game overall, problems aside. I thought Feilhaber got a chance to shine. And Mastroeni was absolutely brilliant. I'll be honest- I don't get Bradley, but his position is tough to track on the TV screen, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Great comments Sammy. For the record- I liked Bornstein's offensive swagger, not his defensive. I agree with you about the space he gives up. Seems like he's relied on using his speed to make that space up- but as you say- against better competition, that's a tactic that will get him (and the US) burned. I'm really liking what I see of Simek so far on both sides of the ball. And Spector- even when beat- seems to have learned a lot in the EPL about recovering by using his body without creating a foul.
FWIW, the penalty was called back because the El Sal goalie came off his line much too early, not because Bradley came into the area too early.A few comments, based on your observations.You're right about Demsey's no-look pass. It was sick! He passed outside to the left, with the inside of his left foot! That seems like it would be hard to do standing still, let alone while running.Breaking news: Ching turned the ball into space instead of passing back (beating a defender who was commited to marking his left side)! Beasley attempted a forceful shot (but fired it straight up)! Beasley, Dempsey, Mastroeni, Feilhaber, Bornstein, Simek... even Spector- played with swagger, taking guys on with :gasp#2: actual, real live moves!
If you guys get a chance to see the 4th goal... it was really a thing of beauty. Beautifully placed and weighted passing out of the back, players taking guys on on the flank, sick no-look pass from Dempsey to set up Beasley who calmly slotted the ball home (after missing at least 5 sitters previously).
A really solid game overall, problems aside. I thought Feilhaber got a chance to shine. And Mastroeni was absolutely brilliant. I'll be honest- I don't get Bradley, but his position is tough to track on the TV screen, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
As far as Bradley goes, I agree that he doesn't really impress from the tv coverage. My guess is that, since he was raised as the son of a coach, he probably knows the tactics of the game- more importantly, the tactics of Bradley's game, very well. He may be an extension of the coach, out on the field. Sometimes having a field general out there, even if he isn't an extraordinary athlete, is a good thing for a team. I did notice that he jumped into El Salvadore passing lanes quite a few times, last night. He seems to have a good nose for the ball. The only thing that I noticed about him in the first two games was that I didn't notice anything about him. Who knows? I guess we'll learn more about him as time goes on.
Come to think of it, you're right about the officials. I don't remember a call that I disagreed with yet (with the possible exeption of Gooch's first yellow). They even noticed that Bradley entered the box too soon on Donovan's first penalty kick. I sure as hell didn't.
I think you're dead on about Bradley. He's doing the holding MF job- unglamorous most of the time, but crucial. Good point about him closing down the passing lanes defensively and having a nose for the ball. I played against Bradley the coach when he was at Princeton- and I can see how having somebody on the field who "get's" his system would be really helpful. Either that, or it's his son and it's nepotism at its' worst.
No opinion at all? C'mon, GB- spit it out...
