Showing posts with label Ecuador. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ecuador. Show all posts
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.
U.S. v. Ecuador: First Impressions
U.S. 3 - 1 Ecuador
Do you feel the goosebumps? Me too - I think. Here are some questions that come to me as I review what just happened in my head; I'll compare notes with the rest of the world tomorrow.
Good Test? - About midway through the first half, I thought to myself (for the rest of my family doesn't care about such things) this game looked like a very good, very real test for the U.S. Men's National Team (hereafter, the Yanquis). Ecuador, as a team, was big, athletic, and quick; they pressured our players well and, usually, the minute our guys hit the middle third, an Ecuadoran player attached himself to his hip, back, etc. They also showed a capacity for breaking down, or getting around, the U.S. defense. The second half made me wonder a bit, though...
What About Bob? - How hard will it be to fire Yanqui head coach Bob Bradley? He's compiled a 3-0-0 record, with two of those games coming against what the overwhelming majority of observers would dub quality opposition (no offense intended to the Denmark B-Team); by the end of the day Wednesday, he's likely to have a 4-0-0. By my estimation, this should guarantee Bradley the reins for the Gold Cup and Copa America: see how he manages this team through a month-long tournament and you should have some sense (with the hiring of Steve Sampson the exception that proves the rule) of how he'll perform on the biggest stage.
More below....
Who Spike Landon's Wheaties? - This is what U.S. fans want to see from Landon Donovan. He was everywhere, he played aggressive yet loose and and kept his head through three - almost four - top-quality finishes. Even if this is what he can do, there's no reason to expect him to do it every game. Still, it had definitely been a while, so, yeah, this was refreshing, even exhilirating to see Donovan rip the opposition.
Oh, and how many records will this kid hold before his career is over?
How well will this defense gel? - OK, we all got our wish (dammit! we didn't...where was Jay DeMerit? How much longer do I have to endure speculation without hard evidence?): the defense Bradley fielded was basically our best. But they did look pretty haphazard for much of the first half. One of the yo-yos in the booth said something about them still finding their roles - and I think he's right - so I'm thankful they've got three years in which to do it. The only guy who looked totally solid: Jimmy Conrad. I never thought I'd write this - and feel no regret in doing so - but is Conrad the Yanquis' best defender?
And, yeah, Onyewu got cooked on Ecuador's goal...don't blame him too much, though, 'cause it was a slick little move. And seeing him with his shirt off before the game - good Lord, he's massive.
We know the MVP, but who deserves honorable mention? - I liked what I saw from Clint Dempsey; not everything, but he had a pair of good, slashing runs and a pair of effective defensive scraps. Obviously, I thought pretty highly of Conrad. DaMarcus Beasley had a good enough game that I'd like to think he played himself back into everyone's good graces. Ching battled and, if I'm not mistaken, sent Donovan through on the run for the second goal - though he was otherwise a bit marginal.
Who doesn't? - Happily, most people had a good game. If I had to pick somebody, Benny Feilhaber sprayed some bad passes around the middle of the field. But, for all that, he didn't look like he didn't belong.
All for now. Talk more about this tomorrow.
Do you feel the goosebumps? Me too - I think. Here are some questions that come to me as I review what just happened in my head; I'll compare notes with the rest of the world tomorrow.
Good Test? - About midway through the first half, I thought to myself (for the rest of my family doesn't care about such things) this game looked like a very good, very real test for the U.S. Men's National Team (hereafter, the Yanquis). Ecuador, as a team, was big, athletic, and quick; they pressured our players well and, usually, the minute our guys hit the middle third, an Ecuadoran player attached himself to his hip, back, etc. They also showed a capacity for breaking down, or getting around, the U.S. defense. The second half made me wonder a bit, though...
What About Bob? - How hard will it be to fire Yanqui head coach Bob Bradley? He's compiled a 3-0-0 record, with two of those games coming against what the overwhelming majority of observers would dub quality opposition (no offense intended to the Denmark B-Team); by the end of the day Wednesday, he's likely to have a 4-0-0. By my estimation, this should guarantee Bradley the reins for the Gold Cup and Copa America: see how he manages this team through a month-long tournament and you should have some sense (with the hiring of Steve Sampson the exception that proves the rule) of how he'll perform on the biggest stage.
More below....
Who Spike Landon's Wheaties? - This is what U.S. fans want to see from Landon Donovan. He was everywhere, he played aggressive yet loose and and kept his head through three - almost four - top-quality finishes. Even if this is what he can do, there's no reason to expect him to do it every game. Still, it had definitely been a while, so, yeah, this was refreshing, even exhilirating to see Donovan rip the opposition.
Oh, and how many records will this kid hold before his career is over?
How well will this defense gel? - OK, we all got our wish (dammit! we didn't...where was Jay DeMerit? How much longer do I have to endure speculation without hard evidence?): the defense Bradley fielded was basically our best. But they did look pretty haphazard for much of the first half. One of the yo-yos in the booth said something about them still finding their roles - and I think he's right - so I'm thankful they've got three years in which to do it. The only guy who looked totally solid: Jimmy Conrad. I never thought I'd write this - and feel no regret in doing so - but is Conrad the Yanquis' best defender?
And, yeah, Onyewu got cooked on Ecuador's goal...don't blame him too much, though, 'cause it was a slick little move. And seeing him with his shirt off before the game - good Lord, he's massive.
We know the MVP, but who deserves honorable mention? - I liked what I saw from Clint Dempsey; not everything, but he had a pair of good, slashing runs and a pair of effective defensive scraps. Obviously, I thought pretty highly of Conrad. DaMarcus Beasley had a good enough game that I'd like to think he played himself back into everyone's good graces. Ching battled and, if I'm not mistaken, sent Donovan through on the run for the second goal - though he was otherwise a bit marginal.
Who doesn't? - Happily, most people had a good game. If I had to pick somebody, Benny Feilhaber sprayed some bad passes around the middle of the field. But, for all that, he didn't look like he didn't belong.
All for now. Talk more about this tomorrow.
USMNT: The Games, Some Scouting, One Observation
As nearly everyone who could find this site through Bloglines or Soccer Blogs knows, the U.S. Men's National Team (screw "USMNT"; let's call 'em...the "Yanquis") has a pair of games coming up over the next week: Ecuador on Sunday (and damned early....mimosas?) and Guatemala on Wednesday (won't catch this one; bookended between much, much more alluring CONCACAF Champions' Cup games; drool....).
But, for people who don't follow the game (soccer) or this site (title is up top) regularly, I sent a preview of both games to the good people at Write On Sports. It's nothing fancy, but it gives the reader a few names and implies the crucial thing: if you can only watch one of these games, make it the Ecuador game.
Regarding the Guatemala game, this one is likely to tell us only one of two things: 1) that we're still better than most teams in our region and that's only a question of degree on a given day; 2) in the event of a win or a draw, that the Yanquis had a bad day. Anything else we learn - whether we score, or totally fail to score - will carry an asterisk to signify that this was Guatemala, after all. I'm not belittling the Guatemalans for sport, or mocking them; I'm merely saying the reason the Yanquis haven't lost to them since 1988 matches the reason why Liechtenstein freaks friggin' out when they draw, say, the Republic Ireland. There are simply expectations.
Ecuador, on the other hand, promises to be educational. In writing the item for Write On I did a bit of digging on Ecuador, something to refresh my impressions on the team. That digging, which mainly happened on Wikipedia, reminded me of Ecuador's 2006: they made the Round of 16 (where they lost to England) in Germany by beating Poland and Costa Rica. In qualifying for the 2002 World Cup, they topped Brazil in the CONMEBOL marathon. The team they're sending featured a name or two people may recall: Carlos Tenorio, who bagged two goals last summer; Ulises de la Cruz, from Aston Villa and now Reading. I want to pretend I remember more of these guys, but I don't.
What I do remember, though, is that Ecuador looked something solid last summer. Till they hit the hosts (Germany) and England lulled them to sleep in the second round, they looked impressive back-to-front. Their game against a familiar foe, Costa Rica, saw them beat that team by a score the Yanquis attain on a good day.
Based on that, they ought to provide a decent measuring stick for the Yanqui team in terms of where both the trialists (one in particular) and the regulars are. Looking forward to this one...Guatemala...not so much.
I'll close with the observation. Look at the list of forwards called up for these two games:
Where do all these guys earn their paycheck? Does that tell us anything, either about the players themselves or about Yanqui forwards in general? Is there a problem? If so, is there an answer?
For now, I'm willing to say there isn't a problem problem. Like any sane person, I'd rather see the forwards leading my side drawing love from Real Madrid, Barcelona, Manchester United, and so on. But I also take comfort from the fact that Yanqui teams usually field competent defenders and defensive midfielders. And the fact that American teams know how to defend well enough means that forwards playing in our league at least have some educational work in figuring out how to beat them.
So it could be better, but it could also be worse. We're learning at least.
But, for people who don't follow the game (soccer) or this site (title is up top) regularly, I sent a preview of both games to the good people at Write On Sports. It's nothing fancy, but it gives the reader a few names and implies the crucial thing: if you can only watch one of these games, make it the Ecuador game.
Regarding the Guatemala game, this one is likely to tell us only one of two things: 1) that we're still better than most teams in our region and that's only a question of degree on a given day; 2) in the event of a win or a draw, that the Yanquis had a bad day. Anything else we learn - whether we score, or totally fail to score - will carry an asterisk to signify that this was Guatemala, after all. I'm not belittling the Guatemalans for sport, or mocking them; I'm merely saying the reason the Yanquis haven't lost to them since 1988 matches the reason why Liechtenstein freaks friggin' out when they draw, say, the Republic Ireland. There are simply expectations.
Ecuador, on the other hand, promises to be educational. In writing the item for Write On I did a bit of digging on Ecuador, something to refresh my impressions on the team. That digging, which mainly happened on Wikipedia, reminded me of Ecuador's 2006: they made the Round of 16 (where they lost to England) in Germany by beating Poland and Costa Rica. In qualifying for the 2002 World Cup, they topped Brazil in the CONMEBOL marathon. The team they're sending featured a name or two people may recall: Carlos Tenorio, who bagged two goals last summer; Ulises de la Cruz, from Aston Villa and now Reading. I want to pretend I remember more of these guys, but I don't.
What I do remember, though, is that Ecuador looked something solid last summer. Till they hit the hosts (Germany) and England lulled them to sleep in the second round, they looked impressive back-to-front. Their game against a familiar foe, Costa Rica, saw them beat that team by a score the Yanquis attain on a good day.
Based on that, they ought to provide a decent measuring stick for the Yanqui team in terms of where both the trialists (one in particular) and the regulars are. Looking forward to this one...Guatemala...not so much.
I'll close with the observation. Look at the list of forwards called up for these two games:
Brian Ching (Houston Dynamo), Kenny Cooper (FC Dallas), Landon Donovan (Los Angeles Galaxy), Eddie Johnson (Kansas City Wizards), Chris Rolfe (Chicago Fire), Taylor Twellman (New England Revolution)
Where do all these guys earn their paycheck? Does that tell us anything, either about the players themselves or about Yanqui forwards in general? Is there a problem? If so, is there an answer?
For now, I'm willing to say there isn't a problem problem. Like any sane person, I'd rather see the forwards leading my side drawing love from Real Madrid, Barcelona, Manchester United, and so on. But I also take comfort from the fact that Yanqui teams usually field competent defenders and defensive midfielders. And the fact that American teams know how to defend well enough means that forwards playing in our league at least have some educational work in figuring out how to beat them.
So it could be better, but it could also be worse. We're learning at least.
USMNT: 9 A.M.!!! WHAT!!!
Just came across this one: this weekend's friendly between the U.S. Men's Natoinal Team (USMNT) and Ecuador kicks off at 9-friggin'-A.M. MST (My Standard Time - e.g. Pacific).
As big a believer as I am in expansive happy hours, that's pushing it.
P.S. I think yesterday's ramblings got all the angst out of my system. I think someone from the Agency slipped sodium pentathol into my morning coffee.
P.P.S. Hey, USSoccerplayers.com, where's the "Tell Me About Ecuador" feature? Don't tell me I have to look into this myself...
(#########)
As big a believer as I am in expansive happy hours, that's pushing it.
P.S. I think yesterday's ramblings got all the angst out of my system. I think someone from the Agency slipped sodium pentathol into my morning coffee.
P.P.S. Hey, USSoccerplayers.com, where's the "Tell Me About Ecuador" feature? Don't tell me I have to look into this myself...
(#########)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)