Ghana 2-1 United States: Ghana’s organisation and direct running results in the narrowest of victories
The starting line-ups
A tremendous football match won by the side who showed just a little bit more organisation and structure throughout, and made fewer mistakes.
Ghana made a change on the right of midfield, bringing in Samuel Inkoom – often deployed at right-back. The US fielded a line-up largely as expected, the one issue being the central midfield partner for Michael Bradley. Ricardo Clark got the nod, although he didn’t last long.
The first thing to note was that Ghana played a much more energetic defensive game than they are used to. Often, the midfielders retreat deep in front of their own defence, but today the whole side pressed throughout, particularly when the ball was played into Bradley and Clark in the midfield. Kevin Prince Boateng and Kwadwo Asamoah were especially impressive in this respect, and the US never really got going in the first half, because they weren’t able to pass the ball calmly inside their own half.
Asamoah was also doing a very good job in supporting Asamoah Gyan, the lone striker who can become isolated when Ghana hit huge long balls towards him. The presence of an extra midfield player meant that Ghana were able to build up attacks slowly and intelligently, allowing their attacking midfielders time to get forward and link up with Gyan, who led the line superbly throughout the game.
3 v 2 in the centre of midfield gives Ghana the advantage
That extra midfielder was essentially the reason Ghana dominated the first period. They were able to keep possession in the centre of the pitch and play around Bradley and Clark. On the right-hand side, Inkoom was stretching the play wonderfully by hugging the touchline, and with the US wingers playing high and centrally, their full-backs had little support. They both coped reasonably well, although Steve Cherundolo was beaten for pace a couple of times, and picked up a booking for a cynical tackle when Andre Ayew had got past him.
The goal came early on from Boateng, after he had caught Clark in possession in midfield – another sign of the pressure that the US struggled to deal with early on. Clark was having a nightmare – he was booked soon after, and was removed by Bob Bradley after just half an hour.
The change seemed to rejuvenate the US slightly, with Michael Bradley pushing forward further into midfield, almost as if he trusted Clark’s replacement, Maurice Edu, more to maintain possession in deep areas. That said, the US weren’t managing to get their two wide players into the game, and with Ghana defending very narrow, the US were unable to work the ball through the defence, and the full-backs were providing relatively little support in wide areas.
It was only in the final ten minutes of the half that one of their strikers, Altidore, really started to drop deep and pick up Annan, making it more difficult for Ghana to keep the ball. Until then, he and Robbie Findley were working on relatively the same vertical axis – a problem outlined before the tournament – and waiting for service that rarely came. Altidore sometimes dropped deep to win flick-on headers, but Ghana were winning all the second balls.
Second half switches give the impetus to the US
The line-ups for the second half, after Bob Bradley's changes. The use of Dempsey more centrally helped the US get into the game.
As he’s done so often, Bob Bradley changed things at half-time. He took the bold but obvious decision to remove Findley, a recognition that he and Altidore had been working in the same area too much, and not giving the side enough options going forward. On came Benny Feilhaber to give a more traditional wide option on the left, whilst Clint Dempsey moved forward to operate just behind Altidore.
This was what got the US back in the game. Dempsey was not only better at giving Annan more of a problem, his movement and intelligence between the lines was causing the Ghana defence all kind of trouble. The knock-on effect of this was a more prominent role for Landon Donovan, whose drifts from the right-hand side went from looking desperate to looking very dangerous. Almost everything the US created came from good runs (often off-the-ball) from Dempsey. The full-backs were playing both higher and wider than in the first half, and the US were dominating.
It was no surprise that the breakthrough came from Dempsey breaking through the defence and winning a penalty, which Donovan converted. The clearest chance after that came from Dempsey’s off-the-ball movement, which simultaneously created space for Donovan to play the ball through the defence, and space for Altidore to latch onto the ball, although he shot wide.
Ghana were contributing to their own downfall, by dropping deeper and deeper as the match wore on – a far cry from the intense pressing of the first half. Basic long balls were causing the two Mensahs a problem in the air, and Altidore was a nuisance throughout, often getting his touch wrong, but playing a basic target man role more effectively than he might be given credit for.
Substitutions swing it Ghana’s way
A forced change for Ghana was vital in clawing them back into the match. Boateng departed with a thigh problem, and on came veteran Stephen Appiah, who played in an advanced midfield role, with Asamoah dropping deeper. His ball retention higher up the pitch constantly bought the rest of the Ghana time to get forward and support the attacks, and in a young side, his experience seemed to offer a calming influence in a high-pressure situation. They seemed content to get to the end of 90 minutes with the score at 1-1.
At this point, Bradley decided to remove Altidore, and put on Herculez Gomez. Now, Altidore may have been missing chances, but at least he was getting chances, and clearly worrying the Ghana defence. Gomez may be a better option in front of goal, but the US suddenly had less of a direct route when building attacks, something they naturally looked for as extra-time went on. This problem was compounded by the fact that Donovan was looking tired and miscontrolled a couple of times, and so more intelligent build-up play was tricky.
Ghana won it from a tremendous bit of lone striker play by Gyan. A half-hearted, lofted ball over the top was turned into a brilliant through ball thank to Gyan’s pace, strength and persistence – he was able to beat both the US centre-halves to the ball, control it under pressure, and smash it into the net. He’d been slightly frustrating so far in this competition, but this showed his supreme ability as a lone frontman – you won’t find many better displays in that position this tournament, when you consider he had to do it for 120 minutes. The US centre-backs were slightly slow in reacting, and that has been a problem position for them throughout this tournament. Ultimately, it was their downfall.
They tried to get back into the game, but Ghana held on with a tremendous defensive display, and some slightly cynical tactics to slow the game down and break up play. Increasingly, long balls were being hoofed into the box, where you can’t help feeling that Altidore might have been useful. The Gyan goal seemed to lift Ghana’s fitness levels by 10% and drain the US by 10%, and although they created chances, Ghana’s defensive display was far better than the US’ attacking performance at 2-1.
Conclusion
Ghana advance into the quarter-finals, where they’ll play a Uruguay side they have every chance of beating. This was essentially everything that Ghana do best – they defended solidly and desperately, and stole two goals from mini-counter-attacks, using pace, power and direct running. They might not have superstars, but the discipline and positional awareness instilled into the side by Milovan Rajevac is incredible, and they fully deserve their quarter-final spot.
The US have provided excitement and a couple of fantastic moments, but a last 16 spot probably reflects their current ability well. The skill of Dempsey and Donovan, and the box-to-box role of Bradley elevated them to a very dangerous team when they needed a goal, but that couldn’t completely make up for the defensive mistakes throughout their four games. They’ve also shown tremendous character and team spirit – that may seem a hollow compliment after such a gutting defeat – but look at the French side to realise how important it is in getting a team playing cohesively.
Bob Bradley has shown that he’s very good at identifying problems on the pitch and finding a solution with a change in tactics and/or personnel midway through games, but he doesn’t seem to learn lessons from game to game. The starting XI tonight was wrong, evidenced by the fact that he was forced to make two changes before 46 of the 120 minutes had been played. Had he fielded Edu and Feilhaber from the off, and been able to make changes to freshen up the side in the second half, who knows what might have been?
Ghana 2-1 United States: Ghana’s organisation and direct running results in the narrowest of victories
What are your views on how Bradley fits with the USMNT going forwards?
Do you feel like his virtues (team cohesiveness and ability to identify mistakes) make up for his reluctance to have the best 11 players on the pitch?
I just can’t understand how he is so great when making adjustments at the half and so very poor preparing for each match. Almost every game the USA has played for the last year has been marked by a poor first half. There is no reason the USA shouldn’t have progressed farther in this tournament. And if they had played in the first halves of their matches the way they played in the second halves they’d be preparing to face Uruguay.
So I’d like to see Bradley stay only if he shows that he’s understood the lessons learned from this WC; if he hasn’t then he needs to go for the USA to progress as a nation.
Bielsa for America!
Bielsa for England!
completely agree.
Bradley has done well to get a limited group of players to the 2nd round with a fighting chance, a real achievement.
He’s not the one to take the side to the next level, as he is far too predictable. With lots of able midfielders, and few forwards, this side was crying out for a 4-2-3-1 (that could accommodate Feilhaber/Holden/Torres) or at least 4-4-1-1. They need more flexibility–at the start of matches, not just after they fall behind.
Ghana’s tactics–3 in the center of midfield, pressing the USA defensive midfield two–were exactly right on…but also obvious. That Clark happened to be playing made it much easier. Did Bradley not view the England match? Clark was OK in qualifying but now…oh dear.
They really needed some width in the end. Stuart Holden would have been a perfect fit, but the early substitutions–as ZM pointed out–took away options that could have turned the match.
In any case, well done to Ghana. Good to see one African side go this far, and deservedly so.
Absolutely enthralling match, in fact both of the games today were very good. More of the same please.
I hate to kick Bradley after a defeat but the USA were so predictable today. It all fit right into Ghana’s hands. Did anyone doubt that Bradley would deploy a conservative 4-4-2.
It was all wrong and Landon Donovan was far too isolated for my taste, tracking back way too deep. By the time LD got into the attacking third he looked exhausted and out of ideas, this was because Ghana’s defenders ran step for step with them.
CB: The center back problem came back to haunt the USA, long the cornerstone of the team it was a little patchwork.
ST: Altidore is not the future, I am sorry but he was in there far too long and Findley did absolutely nothing. Gomez and Buddle should have been given a look.
The focus issue at the start of games and extra time is vexing.
It’s still a bit early to be writing Altidore’s obituary, I think. He’s still only 20 — the youngest striker to start in this World Cup, if I’m not mistaken. He’s got time to get a bit of composure in the box and figure out how to finish those nice chances he creates.
Altidore just looked mentally and physically fatigued. Bradley should have substituted earlier. otherwise, Altidore playing a great game would have equaled a USA win.
I don’t understand the future comment; he’s only twenty and was the top goal scorer in qualifying. Yes, consistency is a problem, as well as finishing. He was also missing chemistry with his partner up top (replacing Charlie Davies was a real struggle).
At 20, Altidore struggles to run hard (just isolated stretches) doesn’t create a ton of chances per his minutes, and lacks the pace to separate from the last defenders. Often times, including today, he stands around for long stretches after losing possession.
Big brawny strikers look good on paper and in uniform but they don’t give you the mobility, movement and pace needed to succeed at the highest levels.
Perhaps it’s just my preference but I don’t view it as an age thing for him as much as I view it as putting a PREMIUM on mobility, tenacity and so forth…as preferred by a lot of coaches.
I just don’t think your going to see massive improvement in a lot of categories from him butI could be wrong.
Just a multitude of absurd statements here. Altidore’s link-up play has been very good by any measure–much more so when compared with what Gomez and Buddle offer. His mobility is phenomenal for his size, and while finishing is the weakest part of his game, it’s nowhere near as conspicuously bad as some seem to think.
He had a very strong tournament and will lead the line for the US in at least the next two World Cups.
I have to agree with gus. You guys should give him more credit. If anything, if I understand your criticism right, you guys have problems with him in a 4-4-2. Now that I can understand. From what I’ve seen though (world cup matches only), he appears to be the only striker for the US team that could fit a 4-2-3-1 well, a system the US team might want to look at for the future. And such a system would probably provide more flexibility tactically, as one could still shape it during the match depending on score – without having to rely on substitutions.
Regarding Bradley, as bad as the start was yet again. At least he did make the substitution with Clark, unlike other (great) coaches that let their yellow booked players catch the double yellow red early on, when it was visible miles away (e.g. Bielsa vs Spain).
Anyway, you guys should be happy to have Altidore, he will have learned a lot from this tourney and it will make him a better player.
The real trouble appears to be the pace of the centerbacks anyway. Like with many other teams that lack depth, missing key players is tough to cope with.
Gomez was given a look… and he had way less to offer than Altidore.
I am a fan of 4-5-1 (4-1-4-1) as practised by the Ghanaians. As rigid and insipid as this formation may seem, it is the best for any African team that expects to progress at a competitions of this magnitude. It forces the players to be disciplined, cohesive, and play on team strengths rather than individual brilliance. It often results to few goals but it generally favours such teams that have problems keeping to tactical rigour. It however requires a striker who can hold it on his own against robust defenders and be starved of the ball for long spells, but one who is deadly once the opportunity presents itself.
Cameroon used this formation in Italia 1990 and at the Confederations Cup 2003 (their best international performances to date).
Congrats Rajevac and kudos to the Ghana boys for the solidity, focus and discipline.
I also enjoyed the Americans in this tournament but as ZM mentions, the extra-time looked pretty dim after Altidore was taken off.
I agree on 4-1-4-1, it can be a great formation, especially if you have two skilful players on the flanks who are also prepared to work hard.
Hah, perhaps the US could have aped this formation. Sounds perfect.
You need a strong holding midfielder for that job, as well as ZM pointed out two pacy players on the flanks with good work ethic.
Judging from the games so far, Ghana perfectly fits that. Annan has been pretty much flawless, with excellent build up play. He deserves to play in the starting XI of any nation at the tourney.
They do have the skilled wingers, and in Gyan they do have a skilled, hard working player in the lone striker role.
Boateng has also played a nice tourney with the hard job of replacing an injured Essien. The goal was well deserved, a marvelous run at the defense from a very athletic player, exposing USA’s weakness at the back.
The US had team spirit, courage, discipline and whatnot… but they lacked resources. In my opinion, they should have tried with long shots. That’s how Germany could barely defeat them.
I’d like to see Uruguay in the Semi-Final, however I think that Ghana has the advantage in the next game. Uruguay’s attack is gonna suffer a lot trying to score against Ghana. Just like the US, I think that Uruguay should try with long shots to score. They have the players that might do that.
The teams are not at all comparable. Uruguay has two quality consistent efficient finishers; USA has none. Still going to take effort to create chances against Ghana, but Forlan and Suarez aren’t prone to muffing their chances.
Totally agree Bernie, as we have seen throughout this World Cup, teams are struggling mightily to finish. However this hasnt been the case with either Suarez or Forlani. Those guys will get chances, and should score against Ghana. Germany was able to get enough with one goal, and that was without Klose. Uruguay can beat Ghana. Also, doesnt Ghana have two of there players on defense missing the next match? I think that will definitely hurt them.
Many teams would kill to get either Forlan or Suarez in their line up – and they have both. Not many teams can match that repertoire of clinical striking.
I find it maddening that Bradley chose to go back to several things that didn’t work (Clark and Findlay and that 4-4-2 that often struggles against 3 central players), in place of things that did (Edu and Feilhaber and the corresponding tactical change to a 4-2-3-1). It would be nice to see a coach for the US that is more flexible from match to match, in response to the teams they are playing. My thought, though, is that US Soccer will be happy to keep Bradley on for the next World Cup.
So after letting that loss soak in for a while I must say I am still very disappointed with Bob Bradley’s coaching. Yes, he did great in the Confederations Cup and got us out of the group, but his decisions today were costly. When you waste two of your subs before the second half even begins you know you made some bad decisions. Why Ricardo Clark started instead of Edu is beyond me. Your defensive midfielder should not try to dribble around 2 defenders in the center of the pitch. That cost us a stupid goal. Having to sub him off in the first 30 minutes of the game is a waste of a sub to have to make. And what about the first three games made Bradley think that our MLS strikers would be effective? Algeria and Slovenia showed us that we score best when Dempsey is up top and Benny Feilhaber plays in the midfield. For the past two games Feilhaber came it at the start of half time, why did we not start him today if his being on the field seems to produce more goals than having either Gomez, Buddle or Findley on the pitch? Going into extra time we should have had more than on sub left to make, but Bradley’s poor decision cost us dearly.
Fine article as usual, ZM. You tweeted that you’d like to hear from fans of the United States so here goes:
1) One observation I picked up from the match was, as you noted above, Bob Bradley’s admirable ability to identify and rectify problems during games. This was exemplified by the addition of Maurice Edu to the midfield during the first half as a substitute for the less positionally disciplined Ricardo Clark. Edu created a pocket of space in which Michael Bradley was then able to operate, and Bradley was subsequently at the heart of the States’ improvement towards the end of the first half and their strong performance in the second.
2) The main problem with the US performance was that they played too narrow. The idea was, presumably, for Donovan to join the attack when the US were in possession, with Dempsey tucking inside as a third central midfielder. This worked well enough, but when Ghana had the ball the US’ plan fell apart. Jonathan Bornstein was caught too high up the field – perhaps the plan was for the US left-back to pin Inkoom inside the Ghanaian half – but in any case this failed, and Bornstein left a criminal amount of space which Inkoom repeatedly exploited. Even the reliable Cherundolo allowed Ayew too much joy down the Ghanaian left flank, though not to the same extent as Bornstein.
3) Robbie Findley has his uses, but his selection for this match seems ill-advised. You mentioned that Bradley fails to learn tactical lessons from game to game, and that held true in this regard. Altidore played well (incidentally, Altidore’s playing style is similar to Heskey’s – I hope he doesn’t come in for the same level of vitriol) but he wasn’t helped by Findley’s poor movement. It’s very odd that the striker whose main attribute is pace (Findley) started the game, while one with a more varied game (Herculez Gomez) was left on the bench.
4) Ghana were really well-organised, and they exploited the weaknesses of the Americans very effectively. It would be remiss of me purely to focus on US failings without apportioning credit where it’s due. A tremendous retort to those who still cling to the old “athletic but tactically naive” stereotype of African sides.
5) As much as I’d love American domestic football to be worthy of more respect, the two representatives from MLS in the starting lineup – Findley and Bornstein – didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory tonight.
6) It would be a real shame if Bob Bradley left after this World Cup. His popularity in the US soccer community has never been absolute, but I think he’s done a very decent job. He’s an astute guy and his system-based approach to management with an emphasis on tactics is a good fit with the type of players the United States produces.
Cheers for the response, can’t disagree with anything you say.
I think it would be a shame if Bradley left, though I’m not well-versed enough in the politics of the USMNT to comment. On the other hand, I’d like to see him managing a side in Europe. I think he’s an interesting manager tactically, even if he got a few things wrong in this tournament. His tactical ambitions are much more exciting than most Premiership managers.
I would love to see Bradley get a shot somewhere in Europe, but I fear the stigma is still there for US coaches.
Maybe he’s the one to break the door down though. Can’t see a Premiership side taking a chance, maybe Coca-cola or the Dutch (It worked with McClaren!).
Bradley always struck me as a better club coach then national team manager. His MLS career was pretty good, except when under Alexis Lalas. Maybe he can use his Princeton degree to get an job managing a European side for a forward-looking progressive management/owner.
I would also be disappointed if Bradley is forced out. As others have said, Ro16 is a pretty fair indication of where the USA is as a footballing country.
There already seems to be a lot of criticism of the selection for this match. I think fatigue was a factor in Findley and Clark’s selection. Chasing all those games may be heroic and exciting, but it doesn’t come at no cost going forward in a compressed tournament like this.
Findley was there for pace due to Charlie Davies’ absence, but Davies’ instincts seem not to take him into Altidore’s area of operation. Findley is a less effective partner for Altidore for this reason.
What the USA needs most is quality across the back four. Absent the cheap goals, with the attacking staff allowed to pick their spots instead of being desperate, this squad has more to show than it did here.
Spot on. Great job.
Ghana was beatable, they played “their game” extremely well. The USA did not play “their own” game extremely well.
In fact, I can’t think when the USA did play 2 solid halves, sans Algeria match and even then the goals were hard to come by.
Bottom line, the striker selection and production was abysmal. Gomez or Buddle in a 4-5-1 would have been very interesting.
Bradley needs to go, because it is proven he is not a master tactician, nor charismatic, or motivational guy, and the USA needs a new cycle and infusion of energy otherwise it gets stale. See Bruce Arena 2006.
This doesn’t mean it has to be a hot shot Euro coach, the USA should take a long look around.
Agree 100% with CarvalhoPeninsula above, and agree with much of what Big Baller has to say.
A couple things to add, also as a United States fan:
1.) I’m agnostic on Bradley’s return for 2014. He’s done an admirable job: Won CONCACAF qualifying, beat Spain, demolished Egypt, came *this* close to beating Brazil, won his group at the World Cup, continued the domination of Mexico. He also has some obvious weaknesses that have been pointed out by ZM and others. If the USSF makes a change, it needs to be an improvement, not just change for the sake of change. Sigi Schmid is the obvious choice if they look domestically, but I’m not confident he’s a better option than Bradley. Sigi’s probably not a ton worse, but Bradley’s done well enough that he deserves to stay on if the next-best option is someone who probably isn’t a ton worse.
2.) I thought Jay DeMerit had a good tournament, but he was badly out of position on the lob that led to Ghana’s second goal. On the wide-angle replay from above, you can see him drifting out to the right flank before the pass is played, which gave Gyan the room he needed to get to the ball first and put it away. Credit where credit is due: It was a great play by Gyan and an even better finish. It just wasn’t a particularly good play by DeMerit.
Anyway, good luck to Ghana. They deserved to win, they won, and now they’re two wins away from playing for a World Championship. My hat’s off to them.
I haven’t been following the USMNT very closely for very long, but is Jurgen Klinsmann still a possibility for the next coach if we don’t go for Bradley. If I recall he was pretty close to taking control, but ran into problems over how much control of the team he would get and ended up passing on the gig. Any chance those issues could be resolved to get him? Would that be any better for the US?
I think Jurgen Klinsmann would be a very interesting choice to coach the US team, and I could get behind that decision. However, they would have to pay him alot more than Bradley makes
Klinsmann was co-commentator for the game on German Tv. He called the sub of Clark really early on. And was criticizing Findley through out the first half. Also criticized how the USA was unable to get Donovan into play. Very unhappy with Bornstein, too.
He sounded much more excited for the game than in previous games, so his love for team USA was pretty clear – first game he was emotionally invested. Seemed to like Bradley a lot in general, and was devastated to see Ghana score so early. in the extra-time, before congratulating them for the great goal.
I don’t think Klinsmann is the right one to do a lone manager position, he will need a strong coach to back him (as he had in Loew for Germany in 2006).
Given my limited exposure to the team (world cup only), I would still try to go with Bradley. However, if they could manage to involve Klinsmann in some way (not sure if he is only available as head coach) they should try to. Maybe a tandem would be possible (given that Bradley would have no trouble with that).
DeMerit was a star for much of the tournament, but he definitely had an off day – probably fatigue from playing so much so hard and probably not fully fit after time off for eye surgery.
He was culpable on the first goal as well. Once Clark gave up the ball DeMerit should have closed the distance sooner, and his shoulders were turned the wrong way. He was facing inside, where he has Bocanegra for help and Clark sprinting back towards Boateng’s inside shoulder. He should have come across and put his left shoulder/foot forward so he could cut off the turn to the outside.
As a fan of the USA, I think Bradley needs to go. He cost the US today and was lucky to advance out of the group after making several tactical blunders. He was too rigid in adherence to the 4-4-2 to start the game. He also seemed to stick to favorites that just aren’t good enough (Clark, Findley and Bornstein).
The US team at this world cup was crying out for some version of a 4-5-1 (be it 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 whatever). We have depth in the center of midfield with several different options (Edu as a holding mid, Torres as a Pirlo like deep lying playmaker, Holden/Feilhaber as more attacking type players). I also think that if he had gone with this formation more often then we would have seen more from Dempsey and Donovan as they would have been freed up from having to defend so much.
Bradley also has to take some blame for relying too heavily on Onyewu who hadn’t played since October.
The US should have hired Hiddink after he left Russia maybe he will be available if he leaves Turkey after the next Euro. US Soccer should already be sounding him out and if he seems open to the idea then let Bradley stay for another two years. Bradley should not be the coach the next World Cup (not just because he was poor this tournament but I think it’s very tough to have a coach for more than one World Cup cycle see Arena 2006).
I don’t get the hate for Bornstein. The US simply doesn’t have anyone better at left back, at least defensively. Clearly Jonathan Spector was out of form, and just be thankful it wasn’t Frankie Hejduk.
Torres just isn’t ready. He wasn’t ready for the physical level or speed of play at international level. But, the Turkey friendly gave a hint of what his potential is.
Like many other USA followers, I was hoping Torres would be a factor in the tournament, since the US has no other midfielders like him. But when he started against Slovenia he looked tentative and lightweight, underhitting passes (though fortunately he was choosing overly safe options, so it didn’t cost possession), and failing to contribute defensively. His free-kick was the only contribution I remember. I don’t think much of Bradley’s preparation, but as said above, his halftime removal of Torres was spot-on, and I knew we wouldn’t see him again in the Cup.
I hope Torres improves and becomes a regular soon–we desperately need a playmaker.
Completely disagree. Bradley brought out the maximum from this team. Let’s face it. US has one top class player, he plays in the Premiership and no, he does not play in the field. The fact that US team played EVERY SINGLE GAME to the very end is a credit to their coach as much as to the players themselves. We read about Donovan here a lot, but lets not forget that he missed a key PK in the MLS finals, was completely outplayed by international colleagues the past five years and Mexico still owns this team, even when everybody plays and especially when the chips are down (see the last game at Azteca), which is not a credit to team US’ captain.
Bradley makes good adjustments as soon as he notices a weakness, which is a mark of a good coach. He had to start with Clark because he wanted more muscle and experience in the middle. When he realized it wasn’t working, rather, prior to becoming obvious it wasn’t working, he made a change. Bet you your last buck that half a coaches here would have waited for the half to end to make that change. Also, the manner he greeted Clark on the sidelines says something about him and the relationship with his players. They play for him. Bradley should stay.
ZM, kudos for your writing. I went back to read the Ghana preview and you were spot on about this team. They are just tough to chew on. However, I think they won’t have an answer for the attacking talent of Uruguay, simply because they haven’t faced the quality of Forlan and Suarez so far. Also, Kingson’s going to spill it up again, sooner rather then later. Unless they start Appiah behind Gyan, they’ll just end up playing to get to the PKs.
“…and Mexico still owns this team.”
I’m not sure I agree with that statement. Mexico might own the USA at the Azteca, but those two split in the WCQs, and Mexico lost the Gold Cup Final here 3 years ago, which got the U.S. to the Confed Cup. (Yes, Mexico pounded the USA’s B team in last year’s Gold Cup, but Bradley treated that like Wenger treats the Carling Cup.)
If anything, CONCACAF is basically becoming the Scotland of continental confederations: Two strong teams that dominate the region and sometimes do okay on the big stage, and lots of minnows.
Two things:
1) Donovan is top class and by far our best outfield player. He was one of Everton’s best players during his loan spell at the club and showed himself able to play at the highest level. He’s also been playing like this for the last two or three years with his club and with the national team WHEN he is played on the wing cutting in (ie not at Bayern)
2) Outside of Azteca, where the altitude and massive air pollution give Mexico a huge advantage against anyone (similar example – Argentina being destroyed at Peru), the United States has absolutely owned Mexico recently. In the last ten years the two countries have played sixteen times with the USA winning ten (including at the 2002 World Cup), Mexico winning four (three at Azteca), and two draws.
They won’t have an answer for who ? Forlan and Suarez ?. They are both excellent attackers, but the Ghana defense has showed it can be a brick wall at times. They keep it tight at the back and their wing backs Paintsil and Sarpei rarely foray foward. Ghana will look to play just the sort of game they’ve been playing for a while now. On the counter. Saurez is a nippy foward and thrives on space which he might not get against the physical Ghanaian defense. Besides, Ghana will not give Uruguay space at the back as Korea did. S. Korea was far more adventurous going foward and left gaps at the back for Saurez and co to exploit.
Hmmm, if only there were a way to measure the validity of stating that ‘Mexico still owns this team.’ Maybe the two sides could play each other about twice a year, and then we could compare the results? Sound fair?
“Gomez or Buddle in a 4-5-1 would have been very interesting.”
Please no. The US has had success when it plays like it did in the 2nd half: Edu and Bradley holding, Donovan, Dempsey and another attacking midfielder arrayed behind Altidore.
Turnover simply to avoid staleness is foolhardy. There’s something to be said for stability.
I agree about the lack of width but there really isn’t a player in the squad who can provide great natural width. Maybe Beasley or Stuart Holden but Beasley isn’t getting past any Ghanian fullbacks and Holden isn’t really a natural winger.
Big Baller: I think you are right about Altidore. He isn’t the future but he’ll improve and be a good player. I’m not sure why’s he’s an automatic selection though. He’s not that good in steady buildups, misplaces passes and doesn’t finish well. He’s lazy sometimes and Bradley uses the 4-4-2 to provide support for him. Findley was supposed to win some headers and get the ball at his feet from Jozy’s headers to relieve an often disenchanted Altidore. Findley doesn’t seem to be positionally aware enough for this level unlike Gomez.
Side note: DeMerit and Feilhaber are playing for contracts and played pretty well too.
I think Churchill said it best when he said Altidore is our worst striker, except for all the others we’ve tried. Or something like that.
1) Edu is much more comfortable on the ball than Clark, as well as a better passer and better at making himself available for the ball. On offense, Clark offers an wicked shot from distance.
3) Findley just doesn’t have much soccer savvy, and so his pace is ineffective on a organized and well coached team like Ghana.
4) Ghana’s formation clearly was more than a match for the USA’s starting 4-4-2.
5) MLS doesn’t come off that badly; Donovan is a current MLS player, with Howard, Dempsey, Altidore, Bradley all being MLS alumni. MLS even had players on other teams (New Zealand and Honduras). I see Findley as the fastest forward available and Bornstein the left fullback in best form. Findley played to expectations, Bornstein exceeded them (i.e. he wasn’t burned for a goal).
Good point about Edu and Clark, I like Clark and Houston Dynamo have missed him a lot this season, but he showed a lack of discipline in his positioning against Ghana. If his role was to protect the back four then he needed to cover the full-backs more, and if his role was as a ball-winner then he got booked to early on to do this effectively. I still think there’s a role for Clark in the team, but he needs to be someone who carries the ball forwards and gains yards rather than a holding midfielder. A midfield trio of Bradley, Clark and Edu might work nicely, with Edu as the ball-winner, Clark as the water-carrier and Bradley as the passer (I’m simplifying their roles a little, obviously).
My mistake for not citing Donovan as an MLS player. He had a good tournament and I think his reputation and possibly that of MLS will be enhanced as a result. I still think Findley might have had a better tournament though, it was unfortunate that a couple of big chances fell to Altidore, whose job is not really to score goals, rather than Findley.
Regarding the formation, Ghana clearly had the better of the US tactically in the first half and in extra time, but I think it’s not that 4-4-2 was the wrong option but that Bradley made a few mistakes in its implementation. A 4-4-2 might have prevailed had the manager been a little better versed in high-level games. Roy Hodgson, for example, could have negated Ghana’s width without compromising the attacking virtues of his own side.
Overall I think Bradley has learned a few important lessons from the tournament – the limitations of Oguchi Onyewu not least among them – and the US has a very promising core of players around which to build a stronger side for 2014. Although the poor quality of CONCACAF qualifying makes the United States almost ever-present at World Cups, it’s a shame that it also means players aren’t used to high-quality competitive international football. For the likes of Bornstein and Clark, that might have helped make the difference against Ghana.
One thing: I think Bradley should leave the team, regardless of how well or poorly he did. Nothing against him as a coach – it’s just that national teams rarely keep a coach beyond one World Cup cycle for a reason. Any coach who stays too long starts to stick with older players much longer than he should. Bruce Arena was brilliant in 2002, successfully using four different formations in five games, but by 2006 his lineup decisions had grown stale. (I actually wouldn’t mind bringing back Arena after the 2014 World Cup, after his old players are mostly retired. And I wouldn’t mind bringing Bradley back at some time in the future, provided that he loses some of his tactical rigidity.)
Carvalho,
Lest we forget, Donovan is an MLS player (at least for now).
But otherwise, you’re pretty much dead on. Too narrow on the attack, and too wide in defense.
Donovan’s so cocky. I really don’t understand why. He’s a winger full of pace and limited skill who’s trying to be something more. He’s not. If he wanted to show more, he should have either try to convince Bradley to play him on the left, a la Ribery at Bayern, or hug the touchline on the right and widen the field. Either way, he was too centrally positioned in the US’ attack, which was wrong and it stems from him wanting to be more then a mere winger.
Wow. You say Donovan is cocky– then say he should convince the coach switch his position.
Secondly, he isn’t a winger. If he were, his natural inclination would be to get to the byline and provide more service. Fact is there are few ‘wingers’ in the modern game because of the emphasis on the counterattack and attackers/midfielders like Donovan, Kaka, Robben, Arshavin, Ronaldo, etc. are expected to pick the ball up during the transition phase and run at the center of the defense freeing up secondary runners or taking the chance themselves.
The problem in the first half is that both Donovan and Dempsey were attempting to do just what I explained above, but this played into the hands of Ghana’s midfield tactics allowing Annan to effectively cover the positions that both Dempsey and Donovan wanted to exploit, particularly because Ghana’s midfield pressure prevented measured build up by the USA.
For the Americans, Feilhaber’s 2nd half introduction was the key tactical shift (aside from the Clark fiasco), but not because he provided width. In attack he drifted into a central playmaker role, negating the 3v2 advantage that suffocated Bradley earlier. Potentially, Ghana could have countered down Feilhaber’s wing, but he worked hard to minimize the danger.
Great analysis as always ZM.
While Coach Bradley is applauded for making tactical switches quickly, in my mind, 45 minutes is still a long time to fix the two problems that anyone with tactical nous could have seen in the starting lineups. I understand why he left Findley on for an additional 15 minutes (because he couldn’t get into the game when the US lacked possession), but what Feilhaber provided was a very different option from LD and Dempsey who were trying to do very similar things when on opposite sides of the pitch.
Feilhaber didn’t try to find dangerous positions, instead he tried to find space where the US could more effectively maintain possession. *insert platitude about the importance of possession* Possession is particularly important for teams like the USA and Ghana who are not particularly lethal in front of goal. The more chances you need to score, the more you need the ball.
Isn’t part of being good tactically being able to start a game right? Ive been as hard on Bradley as anyone but thought he did a pretty decent job given the cards that are dealt.
Bornstein I thought was a standout vs Algeria (his best game with USMT) and although he is positionally undisciplined at times, he works hard, has some pace, and has cleaned up his tackling. He is an improving player.
Altidore to me is too out of shape physically. He needs to have a more consistent workrate to go to the next level. There is nothing wrong with being a solid target forward in a 4-5-1 alignment. I think he can be darn good at it.
Ricardo Clark is a nightmare though. If its not ill-advised red card yielding tackles, its trying to take guys on with the ball, or just giving it away with piss poor passing. He is our best version of a De Rossi or Cambiasso (hardly either but its the best we got). Bob Bradley should have known better than to start him.
As for coaching for the future, Bob Bradley has gone as far as he is going to go. If we are serious about taking it to the next level internationally, we will need a foreign coach who is tactically astute with some pedigree. Klinsmann is a natural for the job as would a guy like Rijkard.
The types of players we develop are not techically gifted but are physical, mentally tough, and with pace. I think our identity as a national side should reflect and take advantage of it. Play counterattacking football with speed on the flanks, positional discipline with some physical midfielders in the middle of the pitch to win balls, and big, tall strikers (think basketball 2 guards) who can use sports like basketball to help them on the pitch.
Just my 2 cents. The better team won and I am overall pleased with our performance and fight in this tourney.
Despite getting a lot wrong today, I’ll give Bradley a lot of credit. He recognized what he was wrong about and made changes quickly. A lot of managers would be too proud or too stubborn to do that. I’d love to see Bradley get a shot in a foreign country. There is now reason why he couldn’t, other than stupid stereotypes.
Other then Edu, Bradkey clearly got the strikers wrong today. Neither Findkey nor Altidore were at their best and if Bob had it to do over again. I bet we’d have seen bud,e today.
First of all, Clark has been a liability for a while now. I understand his purpose, but Edu allows for better ball retention.
Honestly the team was crying out for a 4-2-3-1 out there. Generally when Bob Bradley is chasing the match he brings on Feilhaber for one of the strikers. What’s disappointing is that he hasn’t really tried using that formation from the beginning. Altidore is a bit raw to be asked to perform the lone striker role, and I’ve always thought Dempsey should be tried as a false nine for once.
As for the defense, it’s a different story. Onyewu’s injury was a disappointment, but it’s not as though he’d been totally fresh anyway (I still don’t think he’s gotten a look-in at Milan). Bocanegra, Cherundolo, and Bornstein have all had fine tournaments, but Demerit and Onyewu just weren’t up to it I’m afraid.
I’ve always felt that this was a squad geared for 2014 anyway. Dempsey and Donovan will be 31 and 32 respectively, so though they’ll lack pace they’ll still have plenty of skill. Altidore and Charlie Davies have shown a lot of potential as a strike partnership, and if players like Bradley, Edu, Feilhaber, and Holden can improve from here then the future is bright.
As for Bob Bradley, I’d say he’s done quite a fine job. Even though it was obvious that the squad he inherited from Arena was aging and stale, he’s done an admirable job establishing a stylistic and tactical identity – something that had been lacking under Arena. He’s instilled belief in a group of players who were absolutely directionless. He found a system that worked brilliantly with Charlie Davies but couldn’t compensate for his loss. He would benefit from a spell in Europe.
Before the tournament started I’d predicted that we’d meet up with Ghana in the Round of 16 and lose. That sense of inevitability and predictability is what has led to our exit. Bob Bradley isn’t so much conservative as he is predictable. He just needs to be a little bit more innovative tactically. It’s a frustrating way to go out, but at least we’ve exited to a good and likable team who play skillful football.
Do you think it’s fair to argue that a better manager would have been able to figure out how compensate for the loss of Charlie Davies, rather than just plugging another striker into the same system and seeing what happens? Especially when it’s a striker of lesser talent?
Bradley isn’t completely naive tactically. Clueless managers don’t beat Spain with that wide a talent gap. Still, if U.S. Soccer is looking for tactical innovation to carry it to the next level, it’s probably not going to find it with Bradley.
I do think a better manager would have handled the loss of Charlie Davies better. I think Bradley thought he could just move a quick player – Findley – into his position and that would at least provide the shape and movement the system needed. Didn’t work. It kinda’ derailed his preferred tactics and I guess he thought it was too late to try something else. I can understand that to an extent.
That said, I think Bradley has done exactly what he needed to do in the wake of the 2006 World Cup. It was pretty bleak after that tournament. There wasn’t much in the way of obvious talent coming through and that Bradley got an admittedly pretty limited group of players to play in the way they have is highly commendable. Honestly I think if he had a Queiroz-type character around to advise him on tactical matters it would go a long way. It frankly doesn’t seem that he has one.
If that can’t happen, then I think a change is necessary. It feels bad to say it considering the frankly excellent job he’s done, but I think Bob Bradley needs to be replaced. He’s done the job he needed to do, but it looks like he’s taken the team as far as he can. Most of the time when people say that about a manager it’s because they’ve failed, but it’s best to look at this thing objectively. He’s raised expectations to a level that he can’t meet consistently.
The best solution I can think of would be to re-jig the management structure to provide for a bit more diversity of opinion on tactics. Bring in a few respected former players to help out with coaching individual aspects of play (a la Martin Keown at Arsenal).
I realize this is probably confusing to read. I mean to say that if we don’t modify the management system to provide some alternative tactical opinions then it requires a change in personell.
Given my limited exposure to the team (world cup only), I believe Altidore does look quite good for a lone striker role. He certainly could grow into it with time. None of the other strikers in the roster looked even remotely as dangerous as he did at times.
Dempsey has been suggested instead, but I think he would be suited better behind Altidore in a 4-2-3-1 system, if USA would try that system instead for a change. I am not familiar enough with Charlie Davies though (aside of reading about him), so hard to say whether that would be a wise route.
Also in 4-2-3-1, I wouldn’t be sure who the left wing would be. Donovan might not be a natural winger, but I think 4-2-3-1 on right would still work well for him. Cherundolo behind him should make for a good tandem on the right side.
I’m wondering why the U.S. didn’t use a 4-2-3-1 formation more often in this World Cup. I understand that Altidore and Davies had been a successful strike partnership during the Confed Cup and qualifying, but with Davies out of the picture here, it seems like Bob Bradley would have been better off deploying Altidore as a lone striker and putting the more versatile midfield talent on the pitch — especially with 2 holding mids like Bradley and Edu who cover well defensively, something the USA needed here with so little pace in the backline, and an attacking line with Dempsey, Donovan, and either Holden, Feilhaber or Torres, depending on the situation. (Dempsey did such a good job for Fulham in the Europa League as an attacking mid behind the striker, even if he only played 30 minutes a game.)
The fact that Torres was not integrated well into this side and never knew his role is bothersome to me. This kid is a starter for a team that won its continental title, and he looked great in the Turkey friendly. Why is he not getting more opportunities in this team?
Actually, I would have preferred Buddle instead of Torres (if you’re going with a wild card, then he has to be in-form and I think Buddle was the most in-form striker the US team had), but you’re correct. Charlie Davies is the reason for 4-4-2 and Bradley should have tried a 4-2-3-1 with Altidore alone. Dempsey is US’ best player and with Feilhaber on the left and Donovan on the right this team could have widen the pitch in the opposition’s half.
Judging from the limited games I’ve seen (world cup matches only), I’d also say this player pool cries for a 4-2-3-1. Only question mark to me would be left wing in that system, and to a lesser degree the team would be happy to look at improvements on the left-back.
Against Ghana, the center-backs seemed to lack pace as well, as ZM pointed out, but I do believe the CB’s did play pretty well in their other games. A fit gooch could have worked wonders, just as for many teams in this world cup, sucks to be missing quality talent.
American’s are great at football, take a look at mls. A poor format that cost’s a lot of real talent and still very good national team’s. Of course not all-star’s and never actually won a world cup but neither did Portugal or Holland. USA is a very sports oriented country even where they suck they can still make a difference.
From your writing I’m guessing English is not your natural language, so I’m a little confused but I think you’re trying to say that even with a poorly set up system for developing talent compared to the top nations and soccer/football/futbol being of such low importance relative to other sports, the USA is still able to put out a competitive team and that we should find that somewhat impressive.
If that is what you’re saying then I completely agree with you.
yes i’m portuguese (my english been degrading since high school, college has no follow up) xD. Yes that is what i’am saying
Very truly put. People need to take a step back and look at things objectively. Well done.
Did anyone else notice an eery similarity between the the Ghana-USA game and the Uruguay-South Korea game?
In both contests one side (Ghana, Uruguay) dominated play in the early going and came away with a quick goal, and then, almost inexplicably at such an early juncture, changed tactics to a more defensive mode. This allowed the opposing side (USA, South Korea) to build up some attacking momentum and eventually dominate the second half. And yet in each game the initial aggressor was able to regroup tactically and put together another goal for the victory.
I’m just not certain what the Ghanaian and Uruguayan coaches were thinking. Where is the wisdom in sitting back and let the other team retain possession in front of your own goal? It’s one thing if you have a defense like Inter Milan, but quite another for these teams. (No disrespect, it’s just that there are very few defenses in the world that won’t let in a goal over the course of a half against a quality team, if that team is allowed to possess with impunity on your own half.)
It’s a cliche, but sometimes the best defense if a good offense. Seems appropriate here, no?
Concerning Uruguay I completely agree with you. The way they played after their 1:0 was just plainly arrogant. It was pretty obvious in my opinion that they underestimated the Korean offense and wanted to save their energy for further matches.
But at least they’ve been able to put the pedal to the floor again and win the match.
In the case of Ghana it looks completely different. They just kept on playing what they played in the first half: Standing tight, winning the ball and then going deep and fast.
Just that the US didn’t lose possession as easily as before halftime, so they were able to build up a lot of pressure which made Ghana look bad.
The real indictment of Bob Bradley is that he already had a lineup that worked – we just never saw it until the second half of any match. In three consecutive matches, he brought in Feilhaber at half and pushed Dempsey up into the support striker role, and in three consecutive matches the substitution improved the team immensely. Also, the return of Ricardo Clark was a surprise after Maurice Edu had done so well in the previous two matches. In three consecutive matches, the “adjusted” midfield and forward lineup was identical: Edu and Bradley as holding midfielders, Feilhaber and Donovan as pinched-in wide players, and Dempsey playing as a second striker behind Altidore.
While it is certainly true that Bradley’s substitutions turned the match around, the fact that it was the SAME substitutions that did it each time suggests that Bradley could have saved himself the trouble by using that lineup from the start.
Bradley has done a very good job and shouldn’t be forced out. But, 8 years is a long time for one coach, and I would like to see him coach a club team hopefully in Europe. If we can get Hiddink it would be stupid not to.
Picking Clark over Edu didn’t make sense to me from a tactical standpoint. From what I’d seen of Ghana we wanted a ball retaining passer sitting in front of the defense, and Edu is clearly a better choice for that. At least when they came out pressing Bradley recognized the increased need for this and made the sub.
DeMerit was clearly fatigued, mentally and physically. I thought he had a fine tournament, but he has fitness issues (just like Onyewu) after a long recovery from eye surgery and I think the demands of this tournament finally caught up to him today. I thought the two fullbacks defended excellently, often finding themselves wide in 1v1’s with no close cover and usually forced a back pass.
We lacked a finisher. More than defensive lapses, not finishing chances was our downfall. No top international side generates as many chances as the US team did this World Cup, simply because they never need to – they finish the early ones and have less onus to create additional ones. No striker scored for us the entire tournament. Altidore’s play has been good, but he was either injured or fatigued today and he should have been subbed out sooner for Buddle to get an in kind replacement for the target man, or else push Dempsey up top sooner and bring in another midfielder.
On that last note, my interpretation of the US’s formation for much of the second half (especially the last 15 minutes of regulation) was a straight 4-3-3. At first the intent may have been to play 4-2-3-1 but then the 3 most attacking players started to interchange. And then Altidore started dropping deep to get the ball and leaning left, Donovan stopped tracking back as far, and Dempsey pushed high. Edu was the holder, and Bradley tended to stay right and Feilhaber left but all three were occupying the central areas. When not in possession there were two clear layers of resistance comprised of 3 players each before reaching the defense. We should have tried this much earlier in the tournament.
I was unimpressed with Altidore. He’s an American Heskey. A great target man, but a finisher? Hm. If Bradley was so set on using Altidore, then it would have made more sense to go 4-2-3-1 with Heske-er, Altidore, at the top of the formation as target. Give the two midfield lines a little more license and the resultant flexibility and movement might’ve made the difference.
I’d love to see Heskey try running at somebody the way Altidore does. Constantly.
Or, Gyan. He is more known for wasting chances rather than converting them.
How can you say that Bradley has done well when he had at his disposal what are arguably the best outfield players in history, a top flight keeper, a Michael Bradley that has perform at a very high level, a team with all the intangibles a team needs to surprise more talented teams, and a favorable draw(group and knock out), but failed to capitalize on them?
How deep you go into the tournament is the real measuring stick, not who you beat or couldn’t hold a 2 goal lead against in what amounts to friendly games. Who cares what position you qualified in, who’s going to remember that? What really matters is how well you do in the knock out rounds. Failure to recognize that fact is a complacency trap that can only breed similar results in the future. So if you’re happy with winning the qualifying and tournament groups and falling short when everyone steps up their game, then Bradley is your man. But if you believe that the US can make a deep run in a WC then you got find a guy that is a master of the craft, and the evidence shows that Bob Bradley has a some ways to go in that respect. Maybe he can go the same route that Aguire went and comeback when he’s more seasoned.
I see everyone beating up on Bradley, Altidore, the defense, etc. But no one has mentioned that the United States best player had a bad game as well. Howard was really out of position on that first goal. A keeper of his skill level should of stopped that one. He just seemed out of sorts today, though I dont think he could of done much on the second goal. Kingson on the other hand, had his second good game in a row. To me that was most shocking, that Kingson outplayed Howard.
Kingson was outstanding. Big surprise to me as well, that of all possible reasons to win or lose I had picked USA to win because of better goaltending. Boy was I proven wrong. Props for Kingson for a great display. Man of the match for me, especially considering expectations and all.
For the second goal the ball over the top seemed very deep in the US’s half before anyone touched it – and I’ve been wondering if maybe Howard should have come off his line. Probably have to watch that again.
That game was more or less decided by pressing and how high a defensive line and how compact the two teams were willing to play. In the first half Ghana pressed very hard and using the extra man in midfield the USA couldn’t cope. Second half numbers were equalled, Ghana dropped off to protect their lead and the USA got a grip on the game. In extra time Ghana realised their mistakes of the second half and even when ahead pushed up – helped as noted in the article by Appiah who needs to start in the next game as he kept the ball better than anyone.
Ghana will be tough opponents for anyone, especially with Gyan leading the line offering a more direct option if necessary against opponents who may have more of the ball than they’ve faced thus far. I could see them giving Brazil problems if they can get to a semi final against them because Brazil don’t like teams that won’t commit many to the attack to leave space for the counters.
Clark’s inclusion was a really bad case of pounding square pegs into round holes. For Houston Dynamo, he sits in front of the defense in a diamond midfield (and excels). He isn’t equipped to make the step up in terms of the distributional and positional play required by the national team’s setup, and this fact has been apparent for ages. While Bradley is perfectly competent, he obviously falls in love with his own visions–hence, not maintaining the system that rescued our group play and reverting back to the starting formation that has killed us every time. Perfectly competent coach, but he’s not taking the USMNT anywhere. Maybe he stays if we can’t get Klinsmann, but new blood (not in the form of Kinnear, Nicol, or Schmid) should win the day.
I really don’t have much anything to say about the US’s tactical outlook that isn’t obvious. Our two main attacking talents can’t shine when stuck too far wide and are incisive when Feilhaber (or Holden) can provide width in their stead. Bradley knew this, too, but seems to have had trouble remembering it until halftime. Furthermore, this adjustment seemed to have prevented the tactical chaos we’d seen earlier when our fullbacks went on attacking forays.
I mean clearly Clark lost the ball and it was his mistake – but why exactly is Bradley drifting outside behind him? I did not understand that at all. After the ball was lost, Bradley made no effort to sprint back to reach it, instead he just coasted. Not sure if anyone was watching, but had Bradley sprinted, that would have allowed the two doubling defenders on KP Boateng to go more offensively at Boateng and possible not leave the space open as easily. Then again, Boateng abused it marvelously and it was a great goal. Howard didn’t look particular good though with at least 2m(!) off optimal position to stop any potential shots – caught by surprise.
The better side won, hard to take for America as the draw/bracket opened up for them and they could have hoped to reach the semi final! Plus losing to a big name side is always a little easier to take, I know it sounds bad, and Ghana are a fine side but some how losing to Brazil/Argentina/Spain etc feels more acceptable!
Overall America had a typically solid world cup, they even topped a group. America are a hard working, athletic, and consistent side who do lots of things well but lack a bit of magic.
Early goals are costing you, and Bradley needs to address why his starting formation doesn’t work as well as his side after his half time adjustments.
Altidore had a very good world cup, I don’t know if he always plays like that but he did a really good job and its a shame he can’t score, if he could you would have a really good player on your hands. From what I saw Gomez offered nothing and was a wasted substitution. Donavan is a very nice player and was ok, but with his talent you needed more from him.. Oh Howard is a good goal keeper but he is in the second rank of keepers in the prem… He might scrape into the top 20 keepers in Europe but probably not.
Altidore is 20. Much better than many players at his age. He might still develop clinical striking, much to learn still for him.
Even without that though, he seems build for a target man, and any team looking for a lone striker in a 4-2-3-1 system would be happy to have him.
Altidore’s size and improving holding play will serve him very, very well in CONCACAF, where most sides struggle with big target men and direct play.
Man, it’s hard to defend against Gyan when he’s on form. You need both centre-backs to keep an eye on him, and even that might not work (see: second goal). And if you pay too much attention to him, then you lack cover for breaks from midfield (see: first goal). But then three at the back is a waste.
So who does Uruguay play at the back? Seems like you need a big bloke like Lugano against Gyan, but he’s pretty slow. Do you bring back Victorino?
Great tactical insight from ZM – adds such another dimension to watching the games for a US fan.
A decent result for the US, reflecting excellent training, preparation, some good substitutions, but still, the US players have shown to be mid-level talents. Is there one US player who got himself a big trasnfer out of this WC?
One issue that never seems to be brought up is the economic advantage that developed countries bring to the WC. What level of medical care does the US get that other sides do not? Secondly, does anyone assume that performance-enhancing drugs account for all that “stamina”? Elite professional sports are awash in hard-to-detect, hugely covered-up PED’s, so why would football be any different?
I don’t know about transfer, but before the world cup German fans were not happy with Michael Bradley at all and some asked to dump him cheap (1-2 mil). Now they want to either keep and develop him or sell him for 8-10 million (as the team lacks a lot more in talent in other areas).
Regarding drugs, it is everyone or no one. So I wouldn’t worry about it, if players are taking drugs they would all be able to use the same. If you want to make a comparison with cycling, yes Armstrong was never caught, but who doubts that he has taken drugs in the past? But so did others, he was still the best cyclist within a drug ridden sport.
At least in Germany, I believe the drug use to be very low nowadays. One league that had a bit of trouble in that regard appears to be Italy, but as far as I know they are slowly making progress in cutting down on corruption there. It will take more time.
Bradley looked like a genius in adjustment because he was so poor in preparation. Conceding a goal in the first 10 minutes of 3 out of 4 games? Switching to a 5 man midfield in 3 out of four games? Yes, it is admirable that the team has the fortitude to fight back, but when a team always has to come from behind, especially after conceding incredibly early, and having to make THE SAME ADJUSTMENT every game suggests a coach that, as ZM said, does not learn his lessons.
I think the US would benefit greatly if Bradley (and more coaches) were to get a job in the Netherlands, Germany or the UK, because just as the technical limitations of the US talent pool were exposed, the limitations of tactical understanding were exposed.
At the same time, Bradley had to have been absolutely on point (and maybe a bit lucky) to have beaten Ghana, which really was a better team in all areas of play. Imagine the team if Muntari was on better terms with the coach and Essien hadn’t been injured!
A very good analysis, exactly what I thought. Thank you for finally giving this US team the attention it deserves. Now enjoy your england post mortem.
ZM — the USA’s tendency to concede extremely early stretches back beyond just the past year to Bradley’s earliest days in 2007.
And reason why I don’t see it/him changing, and why he should go.
In response to the tweeted request for US opinions:
I agree with ZM and many commenters about how Bradley needed to apply the lessons learned from each game to the next. But I disagree with many commenters here about the main US problem, which was not with striker selection or production, or even really with the coach despite the failings I concede above. The problem was with the defense, which was woeful. Even Howard had a bad game. But in general our defenders are too slow and were easily outmuscled by Gyan and the rest of Ghana.
The trouble is that the US has the athletes to develop a high-quality soccer team, but the most promising are often drawn towards basketball or American football. Even when they stay with soccer, US players from 15-22 play in the high school and college system except for the few who make it abroad. Those who don’t make it abroad imply do not get the right kind of preparation for high-level soccer.
In any event, in this WC we should have come out with a 4231 like Bradley went to in the 2nd half of this and other games: Edu and Bradley holding; Dempsey, Donovan and another attacking midfielder arrayed behind Altidore. Most of these players should still be good to go for 2014, so between now and then we need to cultivate some athletically gifted defenders and drill tactical awareness into them.
One thing that’s been in the back of my mind ever since the squads were announced: Giuseppe Rossi must really be kicking himself. He could have started for the US and maybe made the difference, but instead he opted for Italy and wound up staying home while Iaquinta, Pepe, Marchisio and co made fools of the Azzuri fans worldwide. It’s a mad world, folks.
A quick thought on Torres…
He did look tentative and ineffective in his lone appearance but this was also the first half in the 4-4-2. We had this problem every game. Had he been a part of a 5 man midfield then I bet the result would have been different. He could be a poor man’s Xavi for us but he needs someone behind him winning the ball and someone like Bradley to help give him space. If it’s just him and Bradley in a 4-4-2 then it’s not going to work just like Bradley/Clark or Bradley/Edu(best of the options) doesnt work in a 4-4-2.
Da haste dir aber viel m
,
Gracias
http://www.affhtc.com/ SuperSonic