Belgium 2-1 USA: Belgium dominate but take ages to make the breakthrough
The starting line-ups
USA put up a brilliant fight in extra-time, but Belgium had been the superior side for the majority.
Marc Wilmots selected Divock Origi upfront, rather than the underwhelming Romelu Lukaku.
Jurgen Klinsmann brought Alejandro Bedoya back into the side, and made the surprising decision to select Geoff Cameron rather than Kyle Beckerman in midfield, supposedly because of his greater mobility.
This was a tremendously entertaining game, but Belgium should have put it to bed much earlier – only a tremendous goalkeeping display from Tim Howard kept USA in it.
USA midfield very open
The key factor was a direct result of the most surprising selection decision. Beckerman and Jermaine Jones had worked excellently as a duo throughout this competition, and bringing in Cameron in a (relatively) unfamiliar position didn’t make much sense.
The game was played at great pace, with both teams attempting to play high up the pitch and dominate. Belgium were so much quicker on the counter-attack, however, and they continually found oceans of space in the centre of midfield, often both in front of, and behind, the USA midfield.
Cameron simply seemed unnatural in that zone, positioning himself too high up the pitch and getting drawn to Belgium’s midfielders, rather than sitting back and protecting his defence – as Beckerman does so well. Cameron’s booking, on 18 minutes, for a terribly cynical foul to break up a Dries Mertens counter-attack suggested that, frankly, he didn’t know how to play the holding position.
De Bruyne influence
The major beneficiary was Kevin De Bruyne, who constantly uses space so effectively, drifting laterally across the pitch to collect the ball on the run. His end product, was consistently extremely disappointing throughout the game, with too many wayward passes and blocked shots. But USA never really got to grips with De Bruyne, and he created a stream of half-chances and almost-chances.
The best example was after seven minutes, when Michael Bradley was on the left just inside the Belgium ‘third’, and played a lateral pass towards both Jones and Cameron making late runs to the edge of the box. The ball reached Jones, but his touch was poor and possession was conceded. Now, Jan Vertonghen led a counter-attack with USA’s three midfielders all in advance of the ball, and De Bruyne with 20 yards of space to himself, running into the opposition half. De Bruyne received the ball and overhit his pass to Origi, with Matt Besler closing in to put him off.
There were other examples – on 22 minutes Zusi was caught in possession and De Bruyne ended up with a counter-attacking goalscoring chance, cutting inside and pulling his shot just wide.
These moments epitomised the problems USA had throughout this contest – no-one was holding in midfield. It’s difficult to remember another side at this World Cup leaving their defence so open throughout the game, and there were so, so many examples of dangerous Belgium counter-attacks. They were incredibly wasteful once they got into the final third, although the USA defence deserves credit for a frantic last-ditch response.
Origi was partly responsible for the Belgiaun wastefulness, but he nevertheless contributed much more than Lukaku in Belgium’s previous games – his movement into the channels was better, and his link play with the attacking midfielders was also more effective.
Belgium’s dominance did produce a brilliant goalkeeping display from Howard, though – maybe the best of the tournament. Although a few of his saves looked comfortable, his positioning throughout the game was excellent, often moving forward into advanced positions to close down the angle of the shot.
This is something Howard has worked upon over the last couple of years and has been particularly obvious in this competition. It was particularly useful considering Belgium’s attacks often flowed very quickly and involved breaking directly towards Howard – he had plenty of time to move forward from his line and anticipate the shot.
It shouldn’t be inferred that USA were completely battered, and their bravery in midfield did put pressure upon Axel Witsel, who was sometimes overwhelmed in the holding role.
The major zones of strength for Klinsmann’s side were down the flanks, however, where both DaMarcus Beasley and DeAndre Yedlin (on for Fabian Johnson, who picked up an early injury) sprinted forward energetically to create overloads with USA’s wide midfielders. This pushed Eden Hazard and Mertens back into uncomfortable positions – neither are good defensively.
Belgium gave as good as they got in this respect, though, with Jan Vertonghen – who has overlapped well throughout this tournament – storming past Zusi a couple of times and getting in behind the defence. As ever, the final ball was lacking.
Pattern continues
The funny thing about this game was the lack of early changes from the bench, despite USA being so open and Belgium being so frustrating in the final third. Both managers seemed happy enough with the situation of the game. The tempo slowed after half-time and this probably suited Klinsmann’s side, but the broad pattern of the first half continued.
Substitutions played a key role, though, in the closing stages and extra-time. Klinsmann throwing on Chris Wondolowski in place of Zusi was a staggeringly bold move in such an open game, although the striker did get himself into a great goalscoring position shortly before the end of normal time. Still, it further opened up the pitch for Belgian counter-attacks, and through some high-profile replacements, Wilmots finally got his side ahead. Belgium have continually struck late throughout this World Cup.
Kevin Mirallas had already replaced Dries Mertens to introduce sheer speed, and in extra-time Lukaku added even more pace upfront, in place of Origi. Wilmots also switched De Bruyne and Hazard, which was probably just an attempt to try something different rather than a calculated tactical switch.
Either way, Belgium finally made the breakthrough with Lukaku teeing up De Bruyne on the break, before De Bruyne returned the favour for Lukaku ten minutes later. The opportunities hadn’t been any more presentable than in the first half, Belgium were simply more efficient in front of goal.
Then came an inspired USA fightback. Substitute Julian Green, on for Bedoya, scored a consolation goal and his side rallied. Those final 13 minutes were extremely impressive, with the goal seemingly giving the USA another gear and simultaneously making Belgium even more tired.
Bradley, Jones and Cameron, so frustrating in the first half because of their collective insistence on running high up the pitch and leaving space in behind, were now perfect for the situation – a desperate fightback. Witsel and Marouane Fellaini looked exhausted, and Wilmots’ refusal to bring on another midfielder, or even strengthen his defence, was remarkable. He left his side open to constant attacks, and few other sides have exited the competition with such an impressive late rally as this from the United States.
Conclusion
Belgium made hard work of this – USA afforded them so many counter-attacking opportunities, that it’s difficult to work out how they needed 120 minutes to win. It’s worrying that a side took so long to score against an opposition that completely played into their hands.
Perhaps the major lesson from today, with Di Maria and then De Bruyne making the breakthrough in their sides’ victories, is that teams are much better off with a heavily involved but constantly frustrating player, than someone struggling to get into the game. Both Di Maria and De Bruyne made some very poor decisions over the course of 120 minutes, but eventually got one right.
USA have shown some glimpses of real quality, and this game fits into the pattern from throughout the competition – they’re best when they need a goal.
However, they’re rather fortunate to exit this competition as battling, narrowly defeated heroes – they should have been at least 2-0 down by half-time, and Klinsmann’s tactics would have been much more heavily criticised. The decision to drop Beckerman seemed strange on paper, turned out to be counter-productive on the pitch, and there was no attempt to solve the problem. Howard was absolutely fantastic, but if your goalkeeper has to make a record-breaking number of saves, something has gone wrong higher up the pitch.
Klinsmann said after the game that he played Cameron over Beckerman because he thought it was a better match-up against Fellaini – going on to say he thought Cameron did his job in that respect because Fellaini was quiet. Very confusing to me. It’s certainly not much consolation to say “Well Fellaini was quiet” – when the rest of the team were so rampant that they forced a record number of saves… Not playing Beckerman was a rather serious error, in my opinion.
I agree with this assessment about Cameron and Fellaini because Fellaini was the game changer in the group games for Belgium in the group games. Klinsmann took a gamble which nearly paid off till the end of the game. I think Klinsmann should have been more aggressive but the lack of a genuine playmaker for the US side made the difference.
I totally agree that it was a worthwhile shot. Belgium looked abject without Fellaini and we’re ponderous in possession. Cameron neutralized Fellaini and forced him wide but that gave De Bruyne and Vertonghen the chance to dominate the other side.
Beckerman was a brilliant holding DM throughout the WC but I don’t believe he could have handled Fellaini and the problems would be the same. Belgium ended up being a bad matchup for the US, willing to concede possession and allow the US to attack.
The major problem was how the US plan B just wasn’t good. Dempsey was extraordinary playing out of position in a role that didn’t allow him to emphasize his strengths.
The US attack was better with Wondo higher up allowing Dempsey to link play and freeing Bradley to look up while on the ball and pick out passes like the Green goal.
Losing Altidore forced the US to use their players in less ideal roles. After going 2 down we saw the USA that fans remember from qualifying.
If someone says Beckerman should have played they have to justify why the Fellaini from previous games wouldn’t be able to impose himself on the game. I’m not sure the US had an answer available that would allow them to control both Fellaini and De Bruyne.
Klinsmann said he wanted Cameron to match up with Fellaini, which sort of makes sense, because Cameron would match up better with Fellaini physically than Beckerman would have. But positionally, Cameron was more matched up with a less physical and smarter player in De Bruyne that was looking for space . Beckerman would have been the better choice. Had we (USA) played more of a 4-1-4-1 instead of the 4-2-3-1, then Jones or Bradley would’ve matched up closely with Fellaini, either of which can match him physically. Fellaini was quiet, but I don’t know how much of that I credit to the decision to use Cameron.
I haven’t heard Klinsmann talking about it, but my guess is that Cameron was brought in to counteract Fellaini’s role as a target man, both in open play and on set pieces.
Oops: swan beat me to it. I guess JK did comment on the change.
I wasn’t keeping track of stats, but it seemed that Belgium had a massive advantage over USA in second balls (although surely some of this was due to sheer fatigue on USA’s part).
Thank you for your great analysis as ever Michael. I was very upset with how often the team would try to play a risky ball forward into attack when they just needed to calm down, hold possession, and relieve some pressure. It seemed that anytime they were able to string more than 5 passes together, they created a chance, or at least were able to play Yedlin in on the right to work a one on one and get a cross in. I am still baffled by the possession figure being 53% US, that is not the game I saw at all. This is one area in which having Beckerman would have helped the side, though I felt that Cameron was crucial in stopping Hazard’s runs into the middle as he would often evade Johnson/ Yedlin and Zusi.
I’m not sure if you saw Klinsmann’s interview after the match, but he expressed the exact sentiment you have been saying all along about “still nil-nil” as he talked about the team “having too much respect” and discussed how “when you concede a goal you have to chase the game, and suddenly we are able to do it”
Still nil-nil is the wrong attitude for this US team. They should treat every game as starting at 0-3 down…
Perfect. They’d be 3/4-0 up inside 20 minutes!
Omar Gonzales could just as easily have defended Fellaini on set pieces. Open play may have been different. But Beckerman really should have been in there. On that note though, both teams could have had a lot better finishing. So many of Howard’s saves really were routine. No one ever seemed to strike the ball with power when shooting.
i think Beckerman was injured…not sure, though
World Cup 2014 : Germany vs France Preview http://tbrfootball.com/world-cup-2014-germany-vs-france-quarterfinals-preview/
Great analysis, just one small remark on the lack of more defensive oriented substitutions from Belgium: Defour (who is the most likely replacement for/besides Witsel in a holding role) was suspended for this game, while the only two defenders capable of playing a holding midfield role (Kompany and Vertonghen) were both needed in defense. The introduction of Chadli was probably the most defensive sub possible for Wilmots given the players he had.
It’s actually a shame that Roma’s Naingolan wasn’t even included in the selection, as he would be an ideal solution during the last 15′ for Belgium.
I thought it was odd he was left out. This squad doesn’t have any defensive midfielders.
A slightly off center diamond might have worked best with Bradley up top and a trio of Beckerman, Jones, and Cameron in the middle to disconnect Fellaini/Witsel from Belgium’s creative trio might have worked best. Zusi could have stayed wider in an attempt to pin Vertonghen back. Alderweireld could have been left alone, since he’s less of an attacking threat. The game would have probably been less entertaining but the US wouldn’t have flirted with danger every time Belgium broke.
Agreed that the US gave up too much space in midfield, but I think the team has made very encouraging progress for the knockout stages. I’m not going to criticize Klinsmann because generally he has made the right decisions and has coped well with some of the injury concerns.
When I saw the lineup, I thought that Cameron would surely be slotted in at fullback with a diamond in the midfield with Jones at the anchor and Johnson on the right. Then Cameron could contain Hazard as he had during the Premier League campaign. But then I saw both Zusi and Bedoya, and I was totally confused. Perhaps either of those two switched with Beckerman in a 4-5-1 would have seen the US fare better—but then, hindsight is 20/20.
Technically, US is a below average team. They could have played with a tight defense and counterattacking football as iran, greece, Argelia, among others did, instead they decided a bold, perhaps sometimes suicidal, attacking football. And IMHO, Klinsmann deserves a huge credit for it. Of course, they were often caught exposed but they also exploited Belgium flanks and they certainly had the opportunities either win or tie the match.
I think US was the great revelation in this world cup. Experts may consider them as tactically naive, but for me they were really entertaining to watch and bold.
Perhaps a “score one more than you concede” tactic would also play into the hands of the USA public – who said soccer must be a low-scoring game when you can make every game an end to end contest?
As the BBC pundits said at half-time, the US were enjoyable as they were determined to live or die by the sword – if they were to go out, they would do so playing gung-ho attacking football. Watching Johnson and later Yedlin bombing up the right continuously was awesome to watch, and when their sometimes ambitious passing moves clicked, it was a joy to watch.
It seems to me at this WC that even the smaller teams are realising the potential of attacking football – even Greece were more attacking than normal! And Iran tried to score goals on the counter against Argentina, whereas normally defensive minded teams wouldn’t even venture into the opposition half. And let’s not forget Algeria – what a turnaround from four years ago!
Quick question: much was made of Landon Donovan’s omission. What was the reason given, and would his presence have changed anything for the US? I doubt it, as if anything their wide players were the strongest part – it was centrally and in central midfield where they had problems with Bradley out of form and players giving away possession. Though tbf England have the same issue, and also have the same problem with not coping well when leading/being favourites!
And let’s not forget Australia whose attacking football nearly won them the game against the Dutch
The word on Donovan was that he wasn’t fit. Had he been fit, I think he makes the US significantly better, both by being the best attacking midfielder on the team and by pushing Bradley back into the defensive midfield, but he wouldn’t have offered a fundamental change in the team’s style. The biggest personnel issue this team faced, I think, was the lack of an adequate replacement for Altidore; his loss forced them to play a style that they don’t have the technical skill to succeed with at this level.
Vertonghen did ok at left back
I think the quality of finishing from Belgium is lacked. If the GK is higher up, why they never try to chip/lob shoot.
“Perhaps the major lesson from today, with Di Maria and then De Bruyne making the breakthrough in their sides’ victories, is that teams are much better off with a heavily involved but constantly frustrating player, than someone struggling to get into the game. Both Di Maria and De Bruyne made some very poor decisions over the course of 120 minutes, but eventually got one right.”
Grosskreutz on tonight, then!
Hulk too – another hardworking midfielder who relentlessly creates opportunity after opportunity, only to squander every single one of them.
Michael, just a tiny detail, you have forgot to put in the title “(AET)”. your work is otherwise near perfection as always, thanks for the continous coverage
Donovan…better than Zusi, Bedoya combined…and would of been better than Dempsey. Klinsmann plan was poor…no defensive cm…cmon…what about all the talk about physio..team…fitness…3 hamstring pulls…
One thing about Cameron: he’s almost too versatile and has never stayed at any particular position for longer than about one season at a stretch in his entire career. He’s played literally every outfield role except on the left side of midfield at professional level: he started his career as an attacking midfielder but moved to the right wing in his first professional season, then moved to the holding midfield role, then center back, then attacking midfield, back to center back, and then to right back. And those are just the positions he stayed at for a half-season or longer. He’s also filled in occasionally as a center forward for the Houston Dynamo and as a left back and a second striker for Stoke City.
It’s nice to have a player who is serviceable at so many positions, but utility players often never master any single position. I think that’s what we saw here.