OT: Boneyard "Other Football" World Cup Thread

[Gurleyman]

Just writing what I think. I understand what happened on the final goal. I'm not concerned with the specifics of who failed to cover who, and what - Portugal needed a goal, and they got the ball to their best player, and he made the play - that's what happened. I'm concerned with the failure to squash the Portugal team mentally, which in turn fails to take their legs out from them, which Germany did effectively without a doubt - they crushed that team - and that opportunity was lost well before because we took the pedal off the gas in the offensive zone of the field in our own offensive play - that's my position, and it's not changing.

I wish I could find a clip, just tried, failed - but here's my memory. We are defending - the ball gets to our possession, Wondowloski gets the ball on the opposing side, near sideline to camera. he makes some kind of moves to get down the sideline, and past his defender - at this point, he is from what I remember 1-1 with the remaining defender and ahd great position to make an attack toward goal which would put him 1-1 with a defender at approximately the corner of the goal box, or to continue to the corner. The rest of the USA team - was way back. I don't see how that compromises our defense in any way. Instead - he goes to the corner, putzes for a few seconds and then makes a real long pass back out to midline of the field and the USA has possession for maybe another 15-20 seconds clearly, and then Portugal is back on the attack.

For me - that's when the entire game changed - Portugal didn't quit. We didn't make them quit. We had them down, and we let them back in the game. That's what I saw.

Germany was playing a man up and the game was over by halftime. Apples and oranges.

The issue of Wondo going to goal isn't that our defense would be compromised - the issue is purely that we'd lose possession sooner. If he had a clean breakaway, obviously he should go to goal and try to end it, but he didn't. After he cut to the sideline, he had an open path to the corner flag, where if you can shield the ball and end up drawing a throw in, corner or a foul once or twice, you can literally kill a minute or two of clock without the ball leaving the corner. Putzing around means time is ticking away. Putzing is good.

The only time you will see a soccer team keep attacking with the exact same tactics with a lead in the final 10 minutes are teams that are behind on aggregate and need another goal. You could watch dozens of pro games and see the exact same corner flag strategy with one-goal leads - you even heard the announcer against Ghana say "and surely Bradley will take this to the corner flag, oh no he doesn't, you'd have bet anything that Bradley would have had the wherewithall to go the corner in that situation..." That's the best place on the field to have the ball when killing off the final minutes.

It's funny reading you say that you'd bet anything that Klinsmann is having long talks with Wondo or his team about letting up. No he's not. He's surely having talks with his defense about not losing concentration and leaving someone unmarked and maybe a quick word with Bradley about better time awareness (but Bradley knows he up). The only thing he is telling Wondo is "good job - you gave us exactly what we wanted". If you want another point of view from someone who knows his sport, Landon Donovan was on air saying it was frustrating because we did everything exactly right in the final minutes until the giveaway.

 

[BlueMAB]

We're not Germany. We don't have that level of talent on our team. We took plenty of shots all game at Portugal. We had a lot of shots on target. But they don't all go in. That's the nature of the game. Portugal is a top 10 team in the world and ranked ahead of us by virtually every ranking system imaginable, so the notion that we should've crushed their spirit, while admirable, is probably a bit ambitious. They hung around cause they're a good team. A team like the US isn't going to be able to blow the doors off of many other World Cup teams because we just aren't at that elite level.

Especially when Germany has a man advantage for 50+ minutes.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

By the way, for anybody interested in some pretty impressive analysis of the World Cup games, Inside the Film Room is pretty fantastic.

 

[BlueMAB]

I can tell you one thing, and this isn't negotiable, no matter what my experience with soccer is. A ball that is not directed at the goal, will not go in the goal.

And a team can't score when the ball is 120 yards away on the opposite touch line.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Germany was playing a man up and the game was over by halftime. Apples and oranges.

The issue of Wondo going to goal isn't that our defense would be compromised - the issue is purely that we'd lose possession sooner. If he had a clean breakaway, obviously he should go to goal and try to end it, but he didn't. After he cut to the sideline, he had an open path to the corner flag, where if you can shield the ball and end up drawing a throw in, corner or a foul once or twice, you can literally kill a minute or two of clock without the ball leaving the corner. Putzing around means time is ticking away. Putzing is good.

The only time you will see a soccer team keep attacking with the exact same tactics with a lead in the final 10 minutes are teams that are behind on aggregate and need another goal. You could watch dozens of pro games and see the exact same corner flag strategy with one-goal leads - you even heard the announcer against Ghana say "and surely Bradley will take this to the corner flag, oh no he doesn't, you'd have bet anything that Bradley would have had the wherewithall to go the corner in that situation..." That's the best place on the field to have the ball when killing off the final minutes.

It's funny reading you say that you'd bet anything that Klinsmann is having long talks with Wondo or his team about letting up. No he's not. He's surely having talks with his defense about not losing concentration and leaving someone unmarked and maybe a quick word with Bradley about better time awareness (but Bradley knows he up). The only thing he is telling Wondo is "good job - you gave us exactly what we wanted". If you want another point of view from someone who knows his sport, Landon Donovan was on air saying it was frustrating because we did everything exactly right in the final minutes until the giveaway.

Landon Donovan thinks we did everything right? Oh that's rich.

The analysis posted above I think is pretty good. I don't for a second think that Bradley made a mental mistake. it was a physical mistake. I suppose the disconnect in all I'm writing is the difference between understanding that elite level performance is primarily mental, with the physical aspects secondary.

Lost in all my discussion about Wondolosky here, is that the fateful Bradley mistake, happened immediately after one of our players was noodling around in the corner again.

We went away from what was working in the offensive side of the field all game long, and it bit us in the ass. It's very clear that my "non-expert" "expert" opinion goes completely against all conventional soccer knowledge presented here, and in that case it's only natural that most people don't get what I'm saying.

 

[Carl Spackler]

And a team can't score when the ball is 120 yards away on the opposite touch line. Brilliant analysis Carl.

It took 8 seconds for Portugal to score from the opposite corner of the field and I believe only 2 passes.

Whatever - my analysis is sound, and it's supported by the evidence, and it's completely contrary to conventional soccer opinon, and it makes sense that it would be attacked as dumb.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Germany was playing a man up and the game was over by halftime. Apples and oranges.

The issue of Wondo going to goal isn't that our defense would be compromised - the issue is purely that we'd lose possession sooner. If he had a clean breakaway, obviously he should go to goal and try to end it, but he didn't. After he cut to the sideline, he had an open path to the corner flag, where if you can shield the ball and end up drawing a throw in, corner or a foul once or twice, you can literally kill a minute or two of clock without the ball leaving the corner. Putzing around means time is ticking away. Putzing is good.

The only time you will see a soccer team keep attacking with the exact same tactics with a lead in the final 10 minutes are teams that are behind on aggregate and need another goal. You could watch dozens of pro games and see the exact same corner flag strategy with one-goal leads - you even heard the announcer against Ghana say "and surely Bradley will take this to the corner flag, oh no he doesn't, you'd have bet anything that Bradley would have had the wherewithall to go the corner in that situation..." That's the best place on the field to have the ball when killing off the final minutes.

It's funny reading you say that you'd bet anything that Klinsmann is having long talks with Wondo or his team about letting up. No he's not. He's surely having talks with his defense about not losing concentration and leaving someone unmarked and maybe a quick word with Bradley about better time awareness (but Bradley knows he up). The only thing he is telling Wondo is "good job - you gave us exactly what we wanted". If you want another point of view from someone who knows his sport, Landon Donovan was on air saying it was frustrating because we did everything exactly right in the final minutes until the giveaway.

BTW: If this is accurate, it confirms why I don't like soccer much. That it would be normal to change your offensive approach, and stop trying to score. Puke.

we have the Cochran rule in CT because of that attitude. Yuck.

 

[ZooCougar]

BTW: If this is accurate, it confirms why I don't like soccer much. That it would be normal to change your offensive approach, and stop trying to score. Puke.

we have the Cochran rule in CT because of that attitude. Yuck.

Yeah that's apples to apples.

 

[ZooCougar]

It took 8 seconds for Portugal to score from the opposite corner of the field and I believe only 2 passes.

Whatever - my analysis is sound, and it's supported by the evidence, and it's completely contrary to conventional soccer opinon, and it makes sense that it would be attacked as dumb.

Yup it's called a counterattack. And when you are closing a game out, you use tactics that prevent a counter. When Bradley turned the ball over, in part because he has an awful first touch, that whole tactic went out the window.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Germany was playing a man up and the game was over by halftime. Apples and oranges.

The issue of Wondo going to goal isn't that our defense would be compromised - the issue is purely that we'd lose possession sooner. If he had a clean breakaway, obviously he should go to goal and try to end it, but he didn't. After he cut to the sideline, he had an open path to the corner flag, where if you can shield the ball and end up drawing a throw in, corner or a foul once or twice, you can literally kill a minute or two of clock without the ball leaving the corner. Putzing around means time is ticking away. Putzing is good.

The only time you will see a soccer team keep attacking with the exact same tactics with a lead in the final 10 minutes are teams that are behind on aggregate and need another goal. You could watch dozens of pro games and see the exact same corner flag strategy with one-goal leads - you even heard the announcer against Ghana say "and surely Bradley will take this to the corner flag, oh no he doesn't, you'd have bet anything that Bradley would have had the wherewithall to go the corner in that situation..." That's the best place on the field to have the ball when killing off the final minutes.

It's funny reading you say that you'd bet anything that Klinsmann is having long talks with Wondo or his team about letting up. No he's not. He's surely having talks with his defense about not losing concentration and leaving someone unmarked and maybe a quick word with Bradley about better time awareness (but Bradley knows he up). The only thing he is telling Wondo is "good job - you gave us exactly what we wanted". If you want another point of view from someone who knows his sport, Landon Donovan was on air saying it was frustrating because we did everything exactly right in the final minutes until the giveaway.

Wing - I understand the argument. I just don't like it, and I don't believe that I'm wrong. I do admit it when I'm wrong BTW. I have made it very clear that I think that the play was "correct", with the condition that is not the only "correct" play. We gave up both goals to Portugal, by failing to defend a pass into the box in front of the goal. it would seem to my annoying, untrained, non-expert, soccer eye - that kind of play is weakness for us, against teams with skill for it. (which Ghana was not) We defended the same kind of thing well against Ghana - and watned them to go to the wings and cross in the game plan.

Our strength in the game, yesterday, was generating scoring chances in the middle of the field approaching the goal. Clearly. Why on earth would it be smart to want to rely on a weakness to win a game, rather than a strength?

In football, if you rely on your defense to win you the game, you will ultimately fail more than you win, no matter how good your defense is, it's the nature of the game. maybe it's not so in soccer - and that's my issue, percentage wise over time it's better to rely on defending to win - and that's probably the case, and I would agree that over time, that's a good strategy. BUt in the case of this single game, expecting our defense to win the game would be a dumb thing to do, especially after they way they scored their first goal. Best defense in this game, was a good offense.

Have a nice day all.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

It took 8 seconds for Portugal to score from the opposite corner of the field and I believe only 2 passes.

Whatever - my analysis is sound, and it's supported by the evidence, and it's completely contrary to conventional soccer opinon, and it makes sense that it would be attacked as dumb.

Yes, and if one of my users said she felt her computer was infested with "black magic" and I said she was wrong, she could say, "Well you're just saying I'm wrong because it goes against conventional IT knowledge."

The reason it's conventional knowledge is because it's generally right and has worked in thousands and thousands of soccer matches which you haven't watched and know nothing about. You are waving your ignorance around as a badge of honor.

 

[BlueMAB]

It took 8 seconds for Portugal to score from the opposite corner of the field and I believe only 2 passes.

Whatever - my analysis is sound, and it's supported by the evidence, and it's completely contrary to conventional soccer opinon, and it makes sense that it would be attacked as dumb.

Wrong, that ball wasn't in the corner it was closer to midfield, and when turned over, already past 6 of our defenders rather than having 11 defenders in between the ball and the goal.

Now you're lying in addition to being obtuse.

 

[ZooCougar]

Wrong, that ball wasn't in the corner it was closer to midfield, and when turned over, already past 6 of our defenders rather than having 11 defenders in between the ball and the goal.

Now you're lying in addition to being obtuse.

Carl basically wants the US to run a hurry up offense and keep the ball in bounds up by one touchdown with two minutes left.

 

[BlueMAB]

It's very clear that my "non-expert" "expert" opinion goes completely against all conventional soccer knowledge presented here, and in that case it's only natural that most people don't get what I'm saying.

No Carl, we get it. You're just wrong.

Why is it that you can't comprehend the fact we can understand exactly what you're saying, and come to the conclusion that you're wrong. Especially when collectively, everyone disagreeing with you, knows the sport exponentially better than you do.

I've said it two or three times now. The next time you actually address this fact will be the first. That win was lost when two of the defenders in the box ran to defend space rather than defending the lone attacker. When Cameron slowed his run back at the 18 while the attacker kept running hard behind him. That was a 2 on 4. We didn't draw because we stopped attacking, we tied because we stopped defending.

You can sit here and argue about what you suppose we should have done while nobody knows what the result would have been. It doesn't make you smarter than the room. If you want to know how we lost that win, just watch the final 30 seconds and ask yourself why the three white jerseys didn't bother finding the one red jersey and marking him.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I want to like soccer - I do.

If I admit I'm wrong here, there is no way I can like this sport.

For the last time - the game tying goal was conceded because we failed to defend a type of play well at the end, that we also gave up a goal on early in the game. We didn't defend a pass into the box well.

The momentum, the game play, and all the energy of the game, was given up by the USA team, after scoring the goal to go up 2-1, by failing to maintain the same kind of attack, that had built the 2-1 lead from being down 1-0.

If I am wrong, and all the momentum in that game - giving it up - is supposed to be the way the game of soccer is played - I may not watch another soccer game ever. I will watch at least one more - and that's the game Thursday.

 

[BlueMAB]

Carl basically wants the US to run a hurry up offense and keep the ball in bounds up by one touchdown with two minutes left.

The guy thinks we're too stupid to get it, but can't watch the final 30 seconds and conclude that the offense only scores on a 2 v 4 if the defense doesn't actually defend.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I knew this thread would get interesting as soon as Carl said he was done with the discussion like 58 posts ago. That's when you know to grab the popcorn.

 

[ZooCougar]

I want to like soccer - I do.

If I admit I'm wrong here, there is no way I can like this sport.

For the last time - the game tying goal was conceded because we failed to defend a type of play well at the end, that we also gave up a goal on early in the game. We didn't defend a pass into the box well.

The momentum, the game play, and all the energy of the game, was given up by the USA team, after scoring the goal to go up 2-1, by failing to maintain the same kind of attack, that had built the 2-1 lead from being down 1-0.

If I am wrong, and all the momentum in that game - giving it up - is supposed to be the way the game of soccer is played - I may not watch another soccer game ever. I will watch at least one more - and that's the game Thursday.

I think I can speak for everyone here, it's totall ok if you don't like soccer. Just realize this, your opponent always gets a vote. When we went up, 2-1 the opposition changed tactics and so did we. You speak as if the US was playing in a vacuum.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

The guy thinks we're too stupid to get it, but can't watch the final 30 seconds and conclude that the offense only scores on a 2 v 4 if the defense doesn't actually defend.

LMAO! That's Carl in a nushell. He does that with football as well. It used to irritate the heck out of me, but he's grown on me.

 

[BlueMAB]

I want to like soccer - I do.

If I admit I'm wrong here, there is no way I can like this sport.

For the last time - the game tying goal was conceded because we failed to defend a type of play well at the end, that we also gave up a goal on early in the game. We didn't defend a pass into the box well.

The momentum, the game play, and all the energy of the game, was given up by the USA team, after scoring the goal to go up 2-1, by failing to maintain the same kind of attack, that had built the 2-1 lead from being down 1-0.

If I am wrong, and all the momentum in that game - giving it up - is supposed to be the way the game of soccer is played - I may not watch another soccer game ever. I will watch at least one more - and that's the game Thursday.

Might as well stop watching football too, because the strategy is no different than when teams start playing more conservatively late in the game and they have a lead. The strategy is exactly the same. Protect the lead and kill the clock.

 

[RedStickHusky]

Apparently what soccer needs is a shot clock; tactics suck....

 

[Carl Spackler]

Might as well stop watching football too, because the strategy is no different than when teams start playing more conservatively late in the game and they have a lead. The strategy is exactly the same. Protect the lead and kill the clock.

Now you're just being mad because I'm irritating you.

I wasn't the only one, who Randy Edsall's coaching - which is exactly what you say - drove nuts. But that's a crappy argument - appealing to others opinions like that. So I'll stop that right now.

You just got to be consistent in what you do, and that's all. It's how you win. Take an approach that works based on the situations/circumstances and then stick with it. Changes can and often should be made along the way on how you approach things, within a plan to take on some task, but when it comes to fundamental change in how you approach something, you got to draw a line somewhere on what you are doing and stick with the plan.

The opposite to what you say, does exist and it's not apples to oranges. We have "mercy" rules in sports - especially youth sports. I say to heck with that. It seems to me, that running up the score, in soccer - especially because goal differential means more than head to head competition - is the frigging desireable thing to do, and therefore you should always take every opportunity you can to score - given of course, that you are not doing it stupidly to put your team in a bad situation.

Whatever - I'm slowly coming around to Jimmy's opinion that it's dumb sport.

 

[ZooCougar]

LMAO! That's Carl in a nushell. He does that with football as well. It used to irritate the heck out of me, but he's grown on me.

Hence my comment to him on D Day. If he ran into a Normandy vet, he would proceed to tell him what the battle was really like.

 

[BlueMAB]

Our strength in the game, yesterday, was generating scoring chances in the middle of the field approaching the goal. Clearly.

No it wasn't. Our strength was sending our backs wide up the field to cross the ball to generate scoring chances. Doing that means they aren't back to defend. They were back to defend the counter. 4 of them were back. They just failed to actually defend. Beasley did the right thing. He took away the angle and forced Ronaldo to pass the ball to one player with 3 white jerseys in the box.

You can suppose that it was "momentum" that tied the game. I think everyone else can see that it was a failure to defend the one guy near the goal who could put the ball in the net. Momentum doesn't score, players do. That's why you have to defend.

 

[ZooCougar]

Everyone on planet earth: The best way to close out a soccer game when you have a lead in injury time is to play defense.

Carl: The USMNT should have tried an onside kick.