1) I like EJ. I know that is offensive to many in the American soccer community, but he plays a certain role well, and it's a role the American team needs. First, a nod to his critics - EJ couldn't find the back of the net even with Google's help.
So why do I like a striker who can't score? EJ provides a couple options that can be extremely useful for a counter-attacking team like the US. EJ is that rare combination of power and speed that allows him to stretch the defense (or at least threaten to stretch the D, opening up spaces for others) and hold the ball up. The US has never had a striker that could do both. This versatility makes him useful when playing against superior opposition.
Do I find myself yelling at EJ through the TV every game? yes. Do I see all the talent and wonder why he can't do more? yes. But does the fact that EJ will probably never reach his full potential mean he doesn't deserve a place in the starting XI? no. Maybe when the US has more attacking options, EJ's inability to score will count for more, but until then, let's remember all the tangible things Eddie does well, not just the one thing he does very badly.
2) That's more like it. I have been having a recurring discussion with friends about the value of home field/court. Unless there is something physical one can point to (like altitude in Bolivia and smog in Mexico City), I don't understand the home field effect. If it wasn't so prevelant in sports at all levels, I would chalk it up to mental weakness. As it is, I'm continually befuddle about how different teams play on the road and at home.
The U.S. is a perfect example of this, especially since most "home" games for the MNT are at best 50-50 as far as crowd support goes. So if its not the energy of the fans and its not physical hardships, why does this team play so differently abroad versus at home?
The US team came out against a vastly superior technical side (gosh, 'Tina is fun to watch in attack and in tight spaces), and played a textbook counter-attacking game. They had numerous opportunities to win the game, though as always they lacked a true cutting edge on the break.
So why couldn't this team play that kind of game in London and Santandar? The US should be GREAT on the road against the better teams in the world, with their demanding fans urging them forwards. Why can't the US soak up the pressure and strike back with venom and verve on the road as they did last night in difficult conditions? I don't have any answers, but then again neither does Bob or Sunil.
3) Pablo "I see red" Mastrioeni was at it again last night. He has to lead the MNT in career red cards, no? Its certainly true that Pablo didn't deserve that second yellow last night, and I still maintain he didn't deserve a red against Italy in 2006, but he plays so close to the edge of uncontrolled fury that it is never surprising to see him making that walk of shame across the pitch.
4) Where were the young guys? I guess Bob didn't want to risk a blowout loss against the World #1's, but I think he missed a real opportunity to see some other players fight against a powerhouse. I was most disappointed in Freddy not getting a start, and you could see 'Tina was worried about him enough to kick him every time he got near the ball. Count Freddy in the same class as LD and Beas as respected field players on the Nats.
It would have been nice to see Kenny Cooper get a few minutes as well, especially when the US went down a man. Kenny knows how to hold the ball, and he has more speed that people realize. I was hoping to see how he fared against top notch D - we already know he can abuse the scrubs of MLS.
We know enough about the Coach's son by now. It would have been more beneficial to see Edu from the start of the match. Sasha is another guy who should have gotten more meaningful minutes. By the time he came on, he was asked to do a job that won't really help anyone evaluate his ability to play at an international pace.
5) Are Califf and Pearce the answer to our defensive frailities? No and maybe. Califf looked halfway decent against a powerful strikeforce of Cruz and Messi, but he did get burned a couple of times and just doesn't have the pace at this level. He could be a valuable contributor in the qualifying games.
Pearce on the other hand might just win the left-back position outright. Let me go on record as saying I find Bornstein to be totally useless and I haven't seen enough of Moor to draw definitive conclusions, but I am not particularly impressed. Pearce looks decent going forward, and has shown enough defensively to suggest he is not a total liability. On the whole, he has a chance to be a solid left-back, if not a world-beater.
6) And as always, the US decision-making in the final third of the field is too slow. Nothing new here, and no real need to harp on it. Until our players learn to be decisive, aggressive, and creative in the last 30 yards, we will always have trouble scoring. Its three games and counting now. I'm willing to bet that the scoreless streak doesn't extend to four with Barbados next week however.
So why do I like a striker who can't score? EJ provides a couple options that can be extremely useful for a counter-attacking team like the US. EJ is that rare combination of power and speed that allows him to stretch the defense (or at least threaten to stretch the D, opening up spaces for others) and hold the ball up. The US has never had a striker that could do both. This versatility makes him useful when playing against superior opposition.
Do I find myself yelling at EJ through the TV every game? yes. Do I see all the talent and wonder why he can't do more? yes. But does the fact that EJ will probably never reach his full potential mean he doesn't deserve a place in the starting XI? no. Maybe when the US has more attacking options, EJ's inability to score will count for more, but until then, let's remember all the tangible things Eddie does well, not just the one thing he does very badly.
2) That's more like it. I have been having a recurring discussion with friends about the value of home field/court. Unless there is something physical one can point to (like altitude in Bolivia and smog in Mexico City), I don't understand the home field effect. If it wasn't so prevelant in sports at all levels, I would chalk it up to mental weakness. As it is, I'm continually befuddle about how different teams play on the road and at home.
The U.S. is a perfect example of this, especially since most "home" games for the MNT are at best 50-50 as far as crowd support goes. So if its not the energy of the fans and its not physical hardships, why does this team play so differently abroad versus at home?
The US team came out against a vastly superior technical side (gosh, 'Tina is fun to watch in attack and in tight spaces), and played a textbook counter-attacking game. They had numerous opportunities to win the game, though as always they lacked a true cutting edge on the break.
So why couldn't this team play that kind of game in London and Santandar? The US should be GREAT on the road against the better teams in the world, with their demanding fans urging them forwards. Why can't the US soak up the pressure and strike back with venom and verve on the road as they did last night in difficult conditions? I don't have any answers, but then again neither does Bob or Sunil.
3) Pablo "I see red" Mastrioeni was at it again last night. He has to lead the MNT in career red cards, no? Its certainly true that Pablo didn't deserve that second yellow last night, and I still maintain he didn't deserve a red against Italy in 2006, but he plays so close to the edge of uncontrolled fury that it is never surprising to see him making that walk of shame across the pitch.
4) Where were the young guys? I guess Bob didn't want to risk a blowout loss against the World #1's, but I think he missed a real opportunity to see some other players fight against a powerhouse. I was most disappointed in Freddy not getting a start, and you could see 'Tina was worried about him enough to kick him every time he got near the ball. Count Freddy in the same class as LD and Beas as respected field players on the Nats.
It would have been nice to see Kenny Cooper get a few minutes as well, especially when the US went down a man. Kenny knows how to hold the ball, and he has more speed that people realize. I was hoping to see how he fared against top notch D - we already know he can abuse the scrubs of MLS.
We know enough about the Coach's son by now. It would have been more beneficial to see Edu from the start of the match. Sasha is another guy who should have gotten more meaningful minutes. By the time he came on, he was asked to do a job that won't really help anyone evaluate his ability to play at an international pace.
5) Are Califf and Pearce the answer to our defensive frailities? No and maybe. Califf looked halfway decent against a powerful strikeforce of Cruz and Messi, but he did get burned a couple of times and just doesn't have the pace at this level. He could be a valuable contributor in the qualifying games.
Pearce on the other hand might just win the left-back position outright. Let me go on record as saying I find Bornstein to be totally useless and I haven't seen enough of Moor to draw definitive conclusions, but I am not particularly impressed. Pearce looks decent going forward, and has shown enough defensively to suggest he is not a total liability. On the whole, he has a chance to be a solid left-back, if not a world-beater.
6) And as always, the US decision-making in the final third of the field is too slow. Nothing new here, and no real need to harp on it. Until our players learn to be decisive, aggressive, and creative in the last 30 yards, we will always have trouble scoring. Its three games and counting now. I'm willing to bet that the scoreless streak doesn't extend to four with Barbados next week however.
No comments:
Post a Comment