El Floppo
Footballguy
great stuff as usual, Pre. 
re: the game- woof.
I think this was a case of fitness winning out on the day, even if the US looked flat-out gassed for the first 60 minutes they were able to find their legs at the end and do enough to close out the game against a clearly wilting outmatched opponent.
Not sure why they looked so tired for those first 60- even LD (who still got all over the field- just missing the final touch all night, a sign of exhaustion typically). T&T did a decent job putting pressure up and down the field, but had two things going against them:
1- They're not good.
2- low-passion crowd... it's usually not a cauldron in T&T as in Central America or even Jamaica, but it looked half empty and more like a friendly against Anguilla. Maybe some noise with the drums and music, but not a lot of passion.
Right before the US scored, I looked up and thought- oh well, I guess the US just isn't very good. I've been ok with them not being great, but the last few games has felt like a real regression. Me no likey.
Once again, I thought the spacing through the MF was poor and dictated much of how the US played (or didn't play).
Bornstein and Spector were improved- Bornstein's pace kept him in the thick of things, even if his positioning was usually off... opposite for Spector. And neither were effective offensively- so many give-aways. I would've preferred to see my guy Cherundulo in there to gain some class on the ball. Most of the bullish muscling play was happening inside with Gooch and Boca, so I don't think Steve would've been a liability defensively.
I thought Gooch looked rusty all night and not ready for the challenge of going up against a very capable Jones. Used his hands too much for positioning and too often got caught too tight to his man... that said- I prefer that to the completely lax marking of the rest of the defenders (and MFs). I've seen Gooch get beat a number of times in recent games on floated balls across the box and Jones should've really scored with his head midway throught he 1st half after Gooch lost him. He was definitely a calming factor in there though, but was off with his distribution. Kind of a meh game, IMO- for what I expect of him.
Boca- pretty much agree with Pre- a non factor in a good way. Have noticed he gives guys a lot of time and space to receive the ball and turn in the defensive third... kinda not good.
LD- another typical solid performance, but thought he looked tired with his final touch. Couldn't hit a dead-ball for his life. Pressed forward well, but got caught forwrad on counters for most of the night... whoever was supposed to cover for him didn't read the play-book.
Bradley and Clark... Mabye it's Bradley? Something is really not working in the middle of the pitch on both sides of the ball. Even T&T were able to find the gaps- albeit mostly through the wings- and won every 2nd ball until the 70th minute. I'd look up and there would've even be a US MF in the TV frame. They both also lost the ball cheaply in possession too often- and too often trying to find the other guy, so the ball is turned over in the center of the pitch near the US defending third. If Bradley is the holding MF, Clark was pretty much right on top of him (similar to the game at Azteca)- they need to get their shape figured out. I've liked Bradley, but again, IMO, this isn't working and it's costing the US possession and defensive shape against weak teams (let alone 90 minutes worth against Mexico). If Jones is the real deal, I'm starting to wonder if Jones/Benny is the better option going into SA, as Bradley has been pretty underwhelming the last few games.
Dempsey... ouch, babe. Harkes has a tendency to latch onto guys who don't hustle- often irrationally. But tonight, he was dead-on about Dempsey who looked like he just didn't give a ####. We all saw him walking back defensively all night- it was great to hear Harkes mention one time in the 2nd half when he didn't hustle back to help Spector double Edwards (I was yelling the same thing at my TV when Harkes mentiond it). Another play typified Dempsey's game (and gameS through Confed Cup)- a 2nd ball was bouncing in the air near midfield on the flank in the first half. Dempsey's standing 5 yards away and is watching it go up and then back down... doesn't move a muscle. From off-screen, Davies come running back from his attacking position (at least 20 yards) to challenge the play and win the ball. Ball bounces loose to a US player, at which point Dempsey makes a run forward to try and receive it. Can't be bothered to work defensively, but works to get himself up front. He still offers a lot on the ball when he's... not being an #######. Not sure Holden's better energy can match those moments of Demspey's upside yet... mebbe.
Benny...
Davies... still love how hard he works to win 40-60 balls (and usually does win them with speed, strength or both... he was muscling much bigger defenders off the ball through the whole first half). Started to show some linking with Jozy... a great sign of things to come. Crosses were off on the night and he couldn't find himself in good positions to get at goal.
Jozy... such a work in progress still- does a lot great and lot not-so great. But that run at goal (after Glen hit the crossbar) where he bulled a defender off the ball and fired from 25- not something we'd EVER see Ching do. Jozy and Davies are clearly the current and future state of the US attack. I look forward to their continued (and hopefully quick) development together.
re: the game- woof.
I think this was a case of fitness winning out on the day, even if the US looked flat-out gassed for the first 60 minutes they were able to find their legs at the end and do enough to close out the game against a clearly wilting outmatched opponent.
Not sure why they looked so tired for those first 60- even LD (who still got all over the field- just missing the final touch all night, a sign of exhaustion typically). T&T did a decent job putting pressure up and down the field, but had two things going against them:
1- They're not good.
2- low-passion crowd... it's usually not a cauldron in T&T as in Central America or even Jamaica, but it looked half empty and more like a friendly against Anguilla. Maybe some noise with the drums and music, but not a lot of passion.
Right before the US scored, I looked up and thought- oh well, I guess the US just isn't very good. I've been ok with them not being great, but the last few games has felt like a real regression. Me no likey.
Once again, I thought the spacing through the MF was poor and dictated much of how the US played (or didn't play).
Bornstein and Spector were improved- Bornstein's pace kept him in the thick of things, even if his positioning was usually off... opposite for Spector. And neither were effective offensively- so many give-aways. I would've preferred to see my guy Cherundulo in there to gain some class on the ball. Most of the bullish muscling play was happening inside with Gooch and Boca, so I don't think Steve would've been a liability defensively.
I thought Gooch looked rusty all night and not ready for the challenge of going up against a very capable Jones. Used his hands too much for positioning and too often got caught too tight to his man... that said- I prefer that to the completely lax marking of the rest of the defenders (and MFs). I've seen Gooch get beat a number of times in recent games on floated balls across the box and Jones should've really scored with his head midway throught he 1st half after Gooch lost him. He was definitely a calming factor in there though, but was off with his distribution. Kind of a meh game, IMO- for what I expect of him.
Boca- pretty much agree with Pre- a non factor in a good way. Have noticed he gives guys a lot of time and space to receive the ball and turn in the defensive third... kinda not good.
LD- another typical solid performance, but thought he looked tired with his final touch. Couldn't hit a dead-ball for his life. Pressed forward well, but got caught forwrad on counters for most of the night... whoever was supposed to cover for him didn't read the play-book.
Bradley and Clark... Mabye it's Bradley? Something is really not working in the middle of the pitch on both sides of the ball. Even T&T were able to find the gaps- albeit mostly through the wings- and won every 2nd ball until the 70th minute. I'd look up and there would've even be a US MF in the TV frame. They both also lost the ball cheaply in possession too often- and too often trying to find the other guy, so the ball is turned over in the center of the pitch near the US defending third. If Bradley is the holding MF, Clark was pretty much right on top of him (similar to the game at Azteca)- they need to get their shape figured out. I've liked Bradley, but again, IMO, this isn't working and it's costing the US possession and defensive shape against weak teams (let alone 90 minutes worth against Mexico). If Jones is the real deal, I'm starting to wonder if Jones/Benny is the better option going into SA, as Bradley has been pretty underwhelming the last few games.
Dempsey... ouch, babe. Harkes has a tendency to latch onto guys who don't hustle- often irrationally. But tonight, he was dead-on about Dempsey who looked like he just didn't give a ####. We all saw him walking back defensively all night- it was great to hear Harkes mention one time in the 2nd half when he didn't hustle back to help Spector double Edwards (I was yelling the same thing at my TV when Harkes mentiond it). Another play typified Dempsey's game (and gameS through Confed Cup)- a 2nd ball was bouncing in the air near midfield on the flank in the first half. Dempsey's standing 5 yards away and is watching it go up and then back down... doesn't move a muscle. From off-screen, Davies come running back from his attacking position (at least 20 yards) to challenge the play and win the ball. Ball bounces loose to a US player, at which point Dempsey makes a run forward to try and receive it. Can't be bothered to work defensively, but works to get himself up front. He still offers a lot on the ball when he's... not being an #######. Not sure Holden's better energy can match those moments of Demspey's upside yet... mebbe.
Benny...
Davies... still love how hard he works to win 40-60 balls (and usually does win them with speed, strength or both... he was muscling much bigger defenders off the ball through the whole first half). Started to show some linking with Jozy... a great sign of things to come. Crosses were off on the night and he couldn't find himself in good positions to get at goal.
Jozy... such a work in progress still- does a lot great and lot not-so great. But that run at goal (after Glen hit the crossbar) where he bulled a defender off the ball and fired from 25- not something we'd EVER see Ching do. Jozy and Davies are clearly the current and future state of the US attack. I look forward to their continued (and hopefully quick) development together.
Anyway, you can not be offside in your own half of the field, on a thrown in, a corner kick or a goal kick. To be determined to be offside you must be nearer the goal line than the second to last defender or the ball when the ball is struck. You also have to be In the area of active play or interfering with play. The area of active play varies by age, experience level etc. At the professional level, the area of active play could be considered a smaller circle around the player than at a rec level. You must have gained an advantage by being in the position that you were in. - Hence if the ball is played to a player on the near side of the field and he is onside and a player on the far side or middle of the field is offside, play would go on. Interfering with an opponent. Also, an offensive player can indicate to the Assistant Referee that he is not interfering with play be a number of means. He could step off of the field, stand still in place, walk away up the field etc. The term level with the second to last defender is used. We used to look mostly at a players feet to determine what level is. Now the instruction is to look for the upper torso or head. So, you can be deemed offside if you are leaning forward and are ahead of the defender at the time the ball is struck.Needless to say, Law 11, offside, is one of the most talked about and debated Law of the game.
but we said pretty much the same thing...
Anyway, you can not be offside in your own half of the field, on a thrown in, a corner kick or a goal kick. To be determined to be offside you must be nearer the goal line than the second to last defender or the ball when the ball is struck. You also have to be In the area of active play or interfering with play. The area of active play varies by age, experience level etc. At the professional level, the area of active play could be considered a smaller circle around the player than at a rec level. You must have gained an advantage by being in the position that you were in. - Hence if the ball is played to a player on the near side of the field and he is onside and a player on the far side or middle of the field is offside, play would go on. Interfering with an opponent. Also, an offensive player can indicate to the Assistant Referee that he is not interfering with play be a number of means. He could step off of the field, stand still in place, walk away up the field etc. The term level with the second to last defender is used. We used to look mostly at a players feet to determine what level is. Now the instruction is to look for the upper torso or head. So, you can be deemed offside if you are leaning forward and are ahead of the defender at the time the ball is struck.Needless to say, Law 11, offside, is one of the most talked about and debated Law of the game.
but we said pretty much the same thing...
Anyway, you can not be offside in your own half of the field, on a thrown in, a corner kick or a goal kick. To be determined to be offside you must be nearer the goal line than the second to last defender or the ball when the ball is struck. You also have to be In the area of active play or interfering with play. The area of active play varies by age, experience level etc. At the professional level, the area of active play could be considered a smaller circle around the player than at a rec level. You must have gained an advantage by being in the position that you were in. - Hence if the ball is played to a player on the near side of the field and he is onside and a player on the far side or middle of the field is offside, play would go on. Interfering with an opponent. Also, an offensive player can indicate to the Assistant Referee that he is not interfering with play be a number of means. He could step off of the field, stand still in place, walk away up the field etc. The term level with the second to last defender is used. We used to look mostly at a players feet to determine what level is. Now the instruction is to look for the upper torso or head. So, you can be deemed offside if you are leaning forward and are ahead of the defender at the time the ball is struck.Needless to say, Law 11, offside, is one of the most talked about and debated Law of the game.
-QG
I've been harping on the spacing of those central MFs too. Seems to me that they're playing flat with eachother, which has created some question as to which one is the true holding MF... at least for me. Also seems to create issues with spacing, where LD or Dempsey has to pinch into the middle in front of them on both sides of the ball. It still doesn't make sense as to why there are such large, or at least clear, gaps between the central MFs and the back line... could be a break-down in zonal marking? Dunno. Last USMNT game I caught was the Gold Cup final (ugh), with Beckerman and Pause in the middle. they did a decent job (and credit to Pause on this) defensively- in the first half- plugginb up the holes and forcing the Mexican attack to go wide or long. I was watching them pretty closely and Beckerman played slightly higher with Pause watching for gaps and men in the remaining space. Going forward wasn't a thing of beauty, but Beckerman was at least in a more attacking position... or at least better able to win 2nd balls in further up the field.
I've been harping on the spacing of those central MFs too. Seems to me that they're playing flat with eachother, which has created some question as to which one is the true holding MF... at least for me. Also seems to create issues with spacing, where LD or Dempsey has to pinch into the middle in front of them on both sides of the ball. It still doesn't make sense as to why there are such large, or at least clear, gaps between the central MFs and the back line... could be a break-down in zonal marking? Dunno. Last USMNT game I caught was the Gold Cup final (ugh), with Beckerman and Pause in the middle. they did a decent job (and credit to Pause on this) defensively- in the first half- plugginb up the holes and forcing the Mexican attack to go wide or long. I was watching them pretty closely and Beckerman played slightly higher with Pause watching for gaps and men in the remaining space. Going forward wasn't a thing of beauty, but Beckerman was at least in a more attacking position... or at least better able to win 2nd balls in further up the field.
