Knowing this is just one more stick of kindling on a bonfire of reports, commentary, rants, and celebration, I’ll (try to) keep this short - and bulleted.
- Dude, can we play Mexico every single day? They’re like the mechanical rabbit to our greyhound. Maybe it’s the green shirts; maybe we should ask all visiting teams to wear green. I don’t know. What I do know is we actually looked like the best team in the region yesterday.
- That quality went down to the micro-level: our guys played faster, smarter, and more crisply than we had in any game to this point. Whether it was a quick lateral pass by our players to get the ball out of danger and ready to head upfield at the half line, or that delightful string of quick passes at the top of the Mexican area that ended with, an admittedly feeble, shot on goal by Landon Donovan. We looked good in nearly every phase of the game to the extent that the exceptions showed as the merest of blemishes.
- Don’t get me wrong, though: winning was the important thing and I would have taken the crookedest of wins so long as things broke our way.
- Turning again to Donovan, c’mon and admit it: when he stepped up to take that PK, all y’all were waiting for a soft shot up the middle and an Oswaldo Sanchez save/shit-eating grin. So, here’s to Landon: way to step up, son.
- My man/men of the match (I have to go with two): Brian Ching and Carlos Bocanegra. The former left Mexican defenders in fits on two occasions with that spin while the latter contributed more timely interventions than any player on the field.
- And, yes, Benny Feilhaber’s goal was simply gorgeous...all the more so seeing as he missed his share of similar/easier shots in previous games.
- A special note to Jonathan Bornstein: all is forgiven; you had me at that shot on goal.
- Both 'keepers had sensational games. Sanchez kept the Mexicans alive more than once in the first half, while Tim Howard's late save on Bofo Bautista just settled onto the memory shelf of great U.S. Men's moments; it's right next to the winner Tab Ramos scored against Costa Rica way back when.
- All in all, we did remarkably well on both sides of the ball: Mexico had their chances, but we kept them down to a few (and Tim Howard mopped up the ones we let in); I’m still recovering from the shock of seeing us take the game to the Mexicans with a combination of grit, athleticism, and intelligence...it’s that last one that’s both big and not a little unusual.
- I haven’t read anything about how the Mexicans viewed the game, but can’t think of any grounds they have to complain. We done good and just beat ‘em.
Apart from noting my nearly-delirious happiness with the win, I’ll close with a couple questions (and, please, do weigh in):
1) Should the team we fielded stand as the U.S. starting eleven for the foreseeable future (allowing an exception here or there)?
2) Anyone think Hugo Sanchez might be looking for work any time soon? If not now, what would it take to lose him the job?
3) To make a bold statement: Clint Dempsey is our best field player. Anyone agree or disagree?
OK, that’s all I’ve got on this one. Can’t wait to read the gloating, moaning, general impressions that everyone else had.
(#########)
Showing posts with label Benny Feilhaber. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Benny Feilhaber. Show all posts
USMNT: The Big Think from Spring Friendlies
Write On Sports posted the piece to which I referred earlier today.
Seeing as I'm linking to it, it doesn't make sense to labor the points it contains, but I do want to note the general thrust of the argument it makes. The essential point is that seeing as we don't produce great players in this country, the main task comes down to figuring how to fit together the pieces we have. This is partly a reaction to the love-fest Feilhaber received after Ecuador, but it's more fundamental than that.
At any rate, I really struggled with the language I used and don't know that I ever found the correct phrasing for what I'm getting at. To give it one more shot: we've got good enough raw materials - not ideal, mind you, but good enough; the focus needs to be on training these guys to think better about the game. I didn't mention this in the piece, but I think Bob Bradley's headed in the right direction on this, at least conceptually. That's what I get from some of the quotes Marc Connolly dredged out of various people in articles about Michael Bradley and Benny Feilhaber. I think we're to a place where we just need to work on making the people we've got more effective. So, that's the point of the Write On piece. Hope y'all like it.
(#########)
Seeing as I'm linking to it, it doesn't make sense to labor the points it contains, but I do want to note the general thrust of the argument it makes. The essential point is that seeing as we don't produce great players in this country, the main task comes down to figuring how to fit together the pieces we have. This is partly a reaction to the love-fest Feilhaber received after Ecuador, but it's more fundamental than that.
At any rate, I really struggled with the language I used and don't know that I ever found the correct phrasing for what I'm getting at. To give it one more shot: we've got good enough raw materials - not ideal, mind you, but good enough; the focus needs to be on training these guys to think better about the game. I didn't mention this in the piece, but I think Bob Bradley's headed in the right direction on this, at least conceptually. That's what I get from some of the quotes Marc Connolly dredged out of various people in articles about Michael Bradley and Benny Feilhaber. I think we're to a place where we just need to work on making the people we've got more effective. So, that's the point of the Write On piece. Hope y'all like it.
(#########)
U.S. v. Guatemala: After Sleeping on It...
My relative silence on the subject of last night’s game between the U.S. and Guatemala has less to do with wanting to forget the whole thing as in trying to put it in some kind of useful context. My attempt to do that should appear shortly on Write On Sports - and I’ll link to it when it shows - but there’s a lot of detailed thinking bubbling underneath all that; that’s what I’d like to look at here.
Since the Write On effort drained me of all ability to think fluidly (it was so...damned...difficult...why?) I think I’ll rock the following, random player comments bullet-style:
- The Feilhaber Man-Crush: Here’s to hoping that last night cooled that a bit. And this has nothing to do with a personal belief he had a bad game; the point, though, is that he didn’t have a good one. Seeing as no one else did, that hardly makes him unique. That Michael Bradley, as I see it, outplayed him on the night gets me wondering whether Bradley wasn’t the decisive person against Ecuador as well. None of this is to say that Feilhaber doesn’t deserve more chances; he does, and many of them. But I’d like to see the Bradley/Feilhaber duo broken up so as to experiment with say, Feilhaber/Ricardo Clark or Bradley/Mastroeni. In other words, team the more-polished passer with an ankle-breaking bulldog and see what happens. The experiment I’m most eager to see is Clark/Feilhaber...so, yeah, it’s not that I don’t like the guy. It’s the hype that gets me.
- Landon Let-Down: I’ll be damned, but those Guatemalans had him figured. I think the only time I saw Landon was when he was picking himself up. He’s still our Landy-cakes and his numbers prove he’s the best offensive player this country has yet produced, but he’s also clearly stoppable. Kids/wife/dinner meant that I couldn’t answer this for sure, but did the Guatemalans just stick a player to Donovan? If I were only looking to kill his game, that’s certainly what I’d do. Whatever they did, though, it worked.
- Mapp’s "Almost" Day: There’s no question in my mind that Mapp posed the most persistent threat to the Guatemalan bunker. Though he never managed the final ball, his runs at least made the Guatemalans chase and lose shape from time to time; damn shame he never managed to crank in that final ball, or totally turn the corner. Still, call this an moderately encouraging outing to place on top of his earlier promising one against Denmark. I’d bump him up to a solid option behind Beasley; on those days you’re feeling cocky enough to play for a win from the outset, you could make him first choice by combining him with a stay-at-home left-back. But, yeah, I like him. He needs to improve to take some attention from Donovan.
- Frank Simek - Best of the new guys. Someone, somewhere detected a habit of Simek hoofing the ball upfield, but I didn’t catch it. What I did catch, was him playing himself smartly out of trouble once or twice, and a late-game surge down the right that looked threatening enough at the time. Credit to him for mixing it up.
- End EJ: For the love of God, can we end this fucking experiment? By my judgment, he didn’t even fight for half the balls lofted his way, which made him nothing as an aerial threat, and he didn’t offer much with the ball at his feet either. Let this guy focus on club ball and see if he can get “it” back - and I wish him luck with it.
- Dempsey: He showed he can play, but only here and there. By the end of the game, though, he was about the only U.S. player still chasing for a goal. Overall, though, he's not winning hearts and minds.
- DeMerit: I’m, frankly, pissed that we still don’t have much to work with around this guy. There simply wasn’t enough for him to do for us to figure.
- Conrad: This may or may not be a lonely position, but I thought he was our best defender on the day. Good at cleaning up and not giving anything away (though that was him on Ruiz’s best shot at the U.S. goal, wasn’t it?).
And finally....
- The Guatemalans: They suck for playing it, but, damn, was that game plan effective. And that leads to...
- The Fundamental Issue: Tedious as last night was, it’s not entirely fair to say the Yanquis don’t know how to break-down an opponent. That “almost-score” - the play that ended with Mapp picking up a smart feed from Dempsey only to send it wide - tells me we do know how. The question is how to do more of it, to train our guys to switch up tactics more comfortably and frequently during the game. Sure, there’s the game plan and there’s the way a player likes to receive the ball, but these cant’ be etched in stone if we’re going to improve as a team and as players. The play described above, which came a bit after the 60th minute, was a good example of that - and we almost caught ‘em out.
All in all, though, we looked awfully confused. And, the reality is, we simply do better against teams who come to play.
All for now...time to shift gears anyway.
Since the Write On effort drained me of all ability to think fluidly (it was so...damned...difficult...why?) I think I’ll rock the following, random player comments bullet-style:
- The Feilhaber Man-Crush: Here’s to hoping that last night cooled that a bit. And this has nothing to do with a personal belief he had a bad game; the point, though, is that he didn’t have a good one. Seeing as no one else did, that hardly makes him unique. That Michael Bradley, as I see it, outplayed him on the night gets me wondering whether Bradley wasn’t the decisive person against Ecuador as well. None of this is to say that Feilhaber doesn’t deserve more chances; he does, and many of them. But I’d like to see the Bradley/Feilhaber duo broken up so as to experiment with say, Feilhaber/Ricardo Clark or Bradley/Mastroeni. In other words, team the more-polished passer with an ankle-breaking bulldog and see what happens. The experiment I’m most eager to see is Clark/Feilhaber...so, yeah, it’s not that I don’t like the guy. It’s the hype that gets me.
- Landon Let-Down: I’ll be damned, but those Guatemalans had him figured. I think the only time I saw Landon was when he was picking himself up. He’s still our Landy-cakes and his numbers prove he’s the best offensive player this country has yet produced, but he’s also clearly stoppable. Kids/wife/dinner meant that I couldn’t answer this for sure, but did the Guatemalans just stick a player to Donovan? If I were only looking to kill his game, that’s certainly what I’d do. Whatever they did, though, it worked.
- Mapp’s "Almost" Day: There’s no question in my mind that Mapp posed the most persistent threat to the Guatemalan bunker. Though he never managed the final ball, his runs at least made the Guatemalans chase and lose shape from time to time; damn shame he never managed to crank in that final ball, or totally turn the corner. Still, call this an moderately encouraging outing to place on top of his earlier promising one against Denmark. I’d bump him up to a solid option behind Beasley; on those days you’re feeling cocky enough to play for a win from the outset, you could make him first choice by combining him with a stay-at-home left-back. But, yeah, I like him. He needs to improve to take some attention from Donovan.
- Frank Simek - Best of the new guys. Someone, somewhere detected a habit of Simek hoofing the ball upfield, but I didn’t catch it. What I did catch, was him playing himself smartly out of trouble once or twice, and a late-game surge down the right that looked threatening enough at the time. Credit to him for mixing it up.
- End EJ: For the love of God, can we end this fucking experiment? By my judgment, he didn’t even fight for half the balls lofted his way, which made him nothing as an aerial threat, and he didn’t offer much with the ball at his feet either. Let this guy focus on club ball and see if he can get “it” back - and I wish him luck with it.
- Dempsey: He showed he can play, but only here and there. By the end of the game, though, he was about the only U.S. player still chasing for a goal. Overall, though, he's not winning hearts and minds.
- DeMerit: I’m, frankly, pissed that we still don’t have much to work with around this guy. There simply wasn’t enough for him to do for us to figure.
- Conrad: This may or may not be a lonely position, but I thought he was our best defender on the day. Good at cleaning up and not giving anything away (though that was him on Ruiz’s best shot at the U.S. goal, wasn’t it?).
And finally....
- The Guatemalans: They suck for playing it, but, damn, was that game plan effective. And that leads to...
- The Fundamental Issue: Tedious as last night was, it’s not entirely fair to say the Yanquis don’t know how to break-down an opponent. That “almost-score” - the play that ended with Mapp picking up a smart feed from Dempsey only to send it wide - tells me we do know how. The question is how to do more of it, to train our guys to switch up tactics more comfortably and frequently during the game. Sure, there’s the game plan and there’s the way a player likes to receive the ball, but these cant’ be etched in stone if we’re going to improve as a team and as players. The play described above, which came a bit after the 60th minute, was a good example of that - and we almost caught ‘em out.
All in all, though, we looked awfully confused. And, the reality is, we simply do better against teams who come to play.
All for now...time to shift gears anyway.
Videos! I Did It! (Dang...more Feilhaber)
Oh, wicked cool. Now, I'm posting videos....now, if only I can get ahold of a tight-focus replay on Feilhaber, I can do something about my sense I'm being bum-rushed into singing his praises.
Look, here's the thing. We looked pretty stretched in the first half - e.g. the time Feilhaber was on the pitch solo. I'm thinking this could have been a function of Ecuador playing more down the flanks, which would have largely bypassed Feilhaber. It was that and the give-aways everyone saw that caused me to rate him as marginal.
Still, there's something about that unanimity of opinion on his debut.
Whatever. I suppose I should just sit and hope that Bradley plays/starts him again against Guatemala (and that he's not one of the players leaving early; doesn't appear so; thanks My Soccer Blog).
U.S. v. Ecuador: Round-Up/Apology to Feilhaber
I feel compelled to 1) point out that Throughball posted a video of the goals from the game, and 2) that I still don't know how to post video. Moving on...
After reading more than I ever wanted to about the U.S. Men's National Team's (aka, Yanquis) 3 - 1 win over Ecuador, I'm going to compare what I saw against what everyone else did...and it won't always make for pretty viewing. I'll link to everything I read below - and a lot of it is quite good - but will start with a re-evaluation of my original analysis....
...which starts with an excuse. I was highly distracted during viewing. To begin, the 9 a.m. start wasn't helpful. I was up, down, out of the room, chasing my kid, sitting another, etc. etc.
I mention this only because what everyone has written positively-to-the-point-of-man-crush about Benny Feilhaber. In my original analysis, I pointed to him as the one guy not deserving of "honorable mention," which I now see runs counter to nearly unanimous opinion. Based on that, I can only conclude that I saw more of the stray passes he managed in the first half than I did of what everyone else saw - specifically when Michael Bradley entered the game; a lot of observers viewed that as a turning point in the game. This, to me, recommends talking up Bradley as opposed to Feilhaber, but, given all I missed, I'm not up for strong statements.
And though I was only dimly aware as to when Michael Bradley came on, I certainly noticed that the U.S. took charge of the game by the second half; it wasn't just the score, but the possession and momentum. So, I'll pay closer attention to the Bradley/Feilhaber thing in future - assuming I get a shot at it.
Other areas of (relative) disagreement:
Clint Dempsey: I thought he did pretty well. I can remember a pair of intelligent, effective runs to match the wayward jogs to the corner that everyone else saw; I also remember two solid, successful defensive battles. No, Clint didn't dominate, but he was hardly anonymous - and, yeah, he exposed Cherundolo more than a little - but I basically liked what I saw and wonder about the extent to which Dempsey labors under, shall we say, Donovan-sized expectations.
Jimmy Conrad: If there was a defender who bailed out the rest when things went wrong, it was Conrad. It's undeniable that the defense didn't look good, particularly in the first half, and that's Conrad's responsibility as much as anyone's. But, his problems with foot-speed aside, I still thought he had the best day at the back and still count him the most reliable defender so far in the current World Cup cycle.
DaMarcus Beasley: I can only say I thought he had a good game. Really. But only one other guy saw that: Ives Galarcep (LINK - see the 67th minute).
All in all, I think some of my first impressions held: it's harder to fire Bradley; Donovan had a great game, but it's only the first step to restoring his reputation; Ecuador is a good team, which people ought to remember when they're criticizing our defense - it's not like this was my old indoor team or anything.
Looking forward to Wednesday, now. I'll be shocked if Bob doesn't make it 4-0-0. Speaking of Bob, USSoccerplayers.com's Jay Hutcherson had by far the most novel take on where he sits with regard to the coaching position; it comes very close to stating outright that getting the job is out of Bradley's hands. Finally, I couldn't hear a word of the commentary - between the kids crawling around my ankles (mentioned above) and my wife planning a birthday party, I didn't hear anything more than a stray line.
Now, the rest of the links (and the odd response from me):
Jen Chang: Part of the Landon love-fest, but there's also love for the Bradley/Feilhaber midfield pairing. (Don't we always get over-excited based on these first impressions?)
Jeff Carlisle: The first place I saw mention of Michael Bradley's impact on the game; also digs into the extent to which Sunday's performance vindicates Donovan. Also credits the "Other Bradley" (Bob) for getting things settled for the second half; it seems he's done this in each of the three games he's coached.
Soccer America turned in both an analysis and grade sheet; the analysis praises the way both central pairings (Donovan/Ching; Feilhaber/Bradley) clicked and they gave Feilhaber high marks (all right, all right...I fucking missed it!)
USSoccerplayers.com's Ken Pendleton wins for most apt description of the game's first half:
Moving now to blogs, An American's View highlighted the defensive errors, dissed Deuce, and added to the widespread love for Bradley-Feilhaber. My Soccer Blog weighed in with grades and analysis, most of which matched everyone else's thinking (though he rated Bradley higher than Feilhaber, which, to my distracted eye, makes sense; he pooped on Deuce too).
On the less thorough side of blog reviews are contributions from Quarter Volley (bashes Dave O'Brien), DCenters (who was underwhelmed), and the Real Salt Lake Blog (who shortened a favorite word, "mofugly," to "fugly" in summing up the game).
That's all...and that's enough.
After reading more than I ever wanted to about the U.S. Men's National Team's (aka, Yanquis) 3 - 1 win over Ecuador, I'm going to compare what I saw against what everyone else did...and it won't always make for pretty viewing. I'll link to everything I read below - and a lot of it is quite good - but will start with a re-evaluation of my original analysis....
...which starts with an excuse. I was highly distracted during viewing. To begin, the 9 a.m. start wasn't helpful. I was up, down, out of the room, chasing my kid, sitting another, etc. etc.
I mention this only because what everyone has written positively-to-the-point-of-man-crush about Benny Feilhaber. In my original analysis, I pointed to him as the one guy not deserving of "honorable mention," which I now see runs counter to nearly unanimous opinion. Based on that, I can only conclude that I saw more of the stray passes he managed in the first half than I did of what everyone else saw - specifically when Michael Bradley entered the game; a lot of observers viewed that as a turning point in the game. This, to me, recommends talking up Bradley as opposed to Feilhaber, but, given all I missed, I'm not up for strong statements.
And though I was only dimly aware as to when Michael Bradley came on, I certainly noticed that the U.S. took charge of the game by the second half; it wasn't just the score, but the possession and momentum. So, I'll pay closer attention to the Bradley/Feilhaber thing in future - assuming I get a shot at it.
Other areas of (relative) disagreement:
Clint Dempsey: I thought he did pretty well. I can remember a pair of intelligent, effective runs to match the wayward jogs to the corner that everyone else saw; I also remember two solid, successful defensive battles. No, Clint didn't dominate, but he was hardly anonymous - and, yeah, he exposed Cherundolo more than a little - but I basically liked what I saw and wonder about the extent to which Dempsey labors under, shall we say, Donovan-sized expectations.
Jimmy Conrad: If there was a defender who bailed out the rest when things went wrong, it was Conrad. It's undeniable that the defense didn't look good, particularly in the first half, and that's Conrad's responsibility as much as anyone's. But, his problems with foot-speed aside, I still thought he had the best day at the back and still count him the most reliable defender so far in the current World Cup cycle.
DaMarcus Beasley: I can only say I thought he had a good game. Really. But only one other guy saw that: Ives Galarcep (LINK - see the 67th minute).
All in all, I think some of my first impressions held: it's harder to fire Bradley; Donovan had a great game, but it's only the first step to restoring his reputation; Ecuador is a good team, which people ought to remember when they're criticizing our defense - it's not like this was my old indoor team or anything.
Looking forward to Wednesday, now. I'll be shocked if Bob doesn't make it 4-0-0. Speaking of Bob, USSoccerplayers.com's Jay Hutcherson had by far the most novel take on where he sits with regard to the coaching position; it comes very close to stating outright that getting the job is out of Bradley's hands. Finally, I couldn't hear a word of the commentary - between the kids crawling around my ankles (mentioned above) and my wife planning a birthday party, I didn't hear anything more than a stray line.
Now, the rest of the links (and the odd response from me):
Jen Chang: Part of the Landon love-fest, but there's also love for the Bradley/Feilhaber midfield pairing. (Don't we always get over-excited based on these first impressions?)
Jeff Carlisle: The first place I saw mention of Michael Bradley's impact on the game; also digs into the extent to which Sunday's performance vindicates Donovan. Also credits the "Other Bradley" (Bob) for getting things settled for the second half; it seems he's done this in each of the three games he's coached.
Soccer America turned in both an analysis and grade sheet; the analysis praises the way both central pairings (Donovan/Ching; Feilhaber/Bradley) clicked and they gave Feilhaber high marks (all right, all right...I fucking missed it!)
USSoccerplayers.com's Ken Pendleton wins for most apt description of the game's first half:
"In the first half, the US lacked any semblance of balance. They looked dangerous every time they came forward, but vulnerable every time Ecuador did the same."
Moving now to blogs, An American's View highlighted the defensive errors, dissed Deuce, and added to the widespread love for Bradley-Feilhaber. My Soccer Blog weighed in with grades and analysis, most of which matched everyone else's thinking (though he rated Bradley higher than Feilhaber, which, to my distracted eye, makes sense; he pooped on Deuce too).
On the less thorough side of blog reviews are contributions from Quarter Volley (bashes Dave O'Brien), DCenters (who was underwhelmed), and the Real Salt Lake Blog (who shortened a favorite word, "mofugly," to "fugly" in summing up the game).
That's all...and that's enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)