First off - great to see Eddie Johnson being given the responsibility on the penalty kick and converting it. Otherwise, count me among those who find his play to be tentative. However, for me it's not entirely clear whether his hesitation (when isolated on top) is a consequence of being attentive to certain instructions from the coaching staff or of his personal undoing. Nevertheless, 11 goals in 27 matches is nothing to sneer at.
I wish I could share the joy or sorrow that some of us feel through ARG's triumph. Argentina has my respect but rarely my support (admittedly for some reasons extending beyond the field). Nevertheless, through the lens of a dispassionate observer I found what I saw of the match to be satisfying. As a fan it would be difficult to complain.
I wouldn't describe this squad in any terms other than 'experimental' or 'exploratory'. Bradley will depart Venezuela armed with useful information, particularly so should he go further down his depth chart.
According to Keller: “
If we came here with our first team, than you could truly look at results. Of course we are trying to get results, but knowing that we are coming with an under strength and inexperienced team. Ultimately what we are trying to do is to increase our playing pool, so when World Cup qualifying comes around we can compete against and dominate teams lesser than us.”
Sensible planning facilitated by proper player management (the US) as opposed to an impasse created by the intransigence of a national federation and the dominant personality of a FIFA executive (TT) resulting in the presentation of a mediocre team.
Match Considerations:
Specifically, while the US camp will likely play down the loss in terms of superior opposition, I think the match highlighted the US' inability to come up with an alternative approach during the post 1-1 period. Marshalling players in defensive positions and searching for counterattacking opportunities brings very little to the table when there are no/insufficient adjustments in tempo - especially during transitions. In this regard US play was very, very predictable.
We could debate the factors contributing to this predictability, but IMV there would likely be near if not universal agreement that a contributing factor would have been the US' defensive posture itself (less purposeful than that employed by Mexico versus Brazil, such that numbers-up situations for the US meant squat to an advancing ARG)
On the other hand, 2 of ARG's goals (Tevez's and Aimar's) stand out for having made play unpredictable. Someone on the thread suggested that Tevez's goal was offside. Far from it. Review his starting position and you'll see that it was sheer brilliance in it's timing, but the key was the ball was flighted in a way that assisted the defense's confusion.
IMV, Aimar's goal was of even better quality. Whether defined soley by Heinze's overlapping movement or Aimar's appreciation of the quality of run needed to meet that ball from outside the area, that goal defined the perfect answers as to how and why the US was made to look flatfooted at the back. IMV, these answers don't solely lie in inexperience but also in the lack of predictability of play as exhibited by ARG.
Facing an opponent that adjusts to conditions imposed by the match is what separates the US from its CONCACAF opponents.
A word on Messi: Nah, ... never mind
