Watch Out !!..The Americans are Coming !!

[trinbago]

Altidore scores twice as U.S. shocks Brazil 2-1 to top Group D
 
July 7, 2007

OTTAWA (AP) -- Jozy Altidore scored a goal in each half and gave the United States a 2-1 victory over Brazil on Friday, sending the Americans to the second round of the Under-20 World Cup and possibly eliminating the four-time champions.

The New York Red Bulls forward put the United States ahead in the 12th minute and, after Leandro Lima tied it in the 64th, converted off a deflection in the 81st for the win. The victory helped the Americans finish atop Group D with seven points.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
 
The U.S. moves into the round of 16 and will face a third-place team from one of the other groups in Toronto on Wednesday.

"I'm very proud to captain a U.S. team to a win against Brazil, and when I look back on this someday I'm going to think of it as a great accomplishment for our team," Freddy Adu said.

The result left Brazil -- which also lost to Poland in its opener -- with just three points and hoping to secure one of four berths given to third-place teams.

With thousands in the capacity crowd of 26,500 dressed in the yellow of the Canarinhos -- dancing to the beating of drums and chanting "Bra-sil, Bra-sil," the Americans faced a partisan atmosphere at Frank Clair Stadium.

"Anytime for a developing nation to beat the giants, the traditional powers like Brazil, is important," U.S. coach Thomas Rongen said. "It's important to push football in our country to a higher level, and these games, and hopefully the attention that this game gets will help that."

Brazil played the match without Benfica's David Marinho, who received a four-match ban earlier in the day for an elbow to South Korea's Shin Young-rok in Tuesday's match that sent the Korean to the hospital.

Both teams had chances early, but it was the U.S. that capitalized first when Altidore handled Renato Augusto at midfield.

While the Brazilian fell looking for a whistle from Spanish referee Alberto Undiano Mallenco, Altidore dribbled to the edge of the penalty area and fired a low, angled drive that eluded goalkeeper Cassio.

The Brazilians used physical play to tie the match.

U.S. goalkeeper Chris Seitz couldn't hang on to Augusto's hard volley from the top of the penalty area and before he could smother the rebound, Lima outmuscled a defender and poked it across the goal line.

But just when it looked like Brazil had done enough, the U.S. converted on one of its rare forays into Brazil territory in the second half.

Adu dribbled in from the right and his shot deflected off a defender to the far post, where Altidore scored into an open net.

 

[capodetutticapi]

comin my ass,they eh winnin shit.

[Mango Chow!]

Altidore scores twice as U.S. shocks Brazil 2-1 to top Group D
 
July 7, 2007



The Brazilians used physical play to tie the match.
 

    So it had absolutely nothing to do with superior play in the midfield and skilful pressure from their forwards, eh?

[Storeboy]

Brazil muffed so many chances... they should have won the game based on possession and opportunities, so the US was lucky to come away with a win.  I believe if this were a best of 5, Brazil would win 4:1 or 3:2, but that is not the case and in the end the score and headlines will all read US 2: Brazil 1.

[saga pinto]

Well I tell you,The americans are coming,here's hoping they wet they draws...............

[truetrini]

steups..de USA matched them throughout the game..muffed chances..so de US didn't muff chances too?

Steups....all dis ahit talk about best of 5 etc.  is jes dat  BULL SHIT!

And jes why did Brazil muff dem chances..de US pressured them, athlete for athlete.  Stop de hating, dis brazil team played well and were even matched.  Simple really...who doh like dat suck USA grade A salt!

The reporter's take on the Brazilian equalizer is spot on.  what is the problem with his description of the goal?

He did not say that Brazil did not play well in the middle, he simply said that the goal came through physical play...and guess what?  He is absolutely correct.

If someone were to say that T&T"s best game in the WC against Sweden were to be replayed 5 times the result would be 4-1 to Sweden I wont take dat easy...becasue we had our chances too.

Based on possession this and chances dat..is all joket talk.

goals win matches and de US scored.....level cut arse!

[trinbago]

goals win matches and de US scored.....level cut arse!

here... here

[football king]

USA ain't go stop talking bout this win for a long time. As they should cause know what, they cut Brazil arse send them superior skillfull samba boys back home to watch the games on tv.

[ttcom]

Brazil (BRA) Statistics USA (USA)
23 Shots 12
15 Shots on goal 8
1 Goals 2
13 Fouls Committed 25
24 Fouls Suffered 13
4 Corner kicks 7
3 Free kicks 2
0 / 0 Penalty Kicks (Goals/Shots) 0 / 0
2 Offsides 2
0 Own goals 0
2 Yellow cards 3
0 Red Cards 0
28 Actual playing time 26
51% Possession (%) 49%

Base on the over stats US wasn't outplayed. If you pressure any Brazil team they'll crack. France did it in the World Cup and Poland and US did it i the U20s.

[dwn]

I wouldnt say brazil used physical play to equalize. An american head the ball to the top of the box and a brazilian cap two defenders before letting go a scissors. The rebound was scrappy (look like an own goal actually) but saying the goal was physical play is a lil misleading.

Big up to the US though. Adu looked impressive.

[Mango Chow!]

steups..de USA matched them throughout the game..muffed chances..so de US didn't muff chances too?

Steups....all dis ahit talk about best of 5 etc.  is jes dat  BULL SHIT!

And jes why did Brazil muff dem chances..de US pressured them, athlete for athlete.  Stop de hating, dis brazil team played well and were even matched.  Simple really...who doh like dat suck USA grade A salt!

The reporter's take on the Brazilian equalizer is spot on.  what is the problem with his description of the goal?

He did not say that Brazil did not play well in the middle, he simply said that the goal came through physical play...and guess what?  He is absolutely correct.

If someone were to say that T&T"s best game in the WC against Sweden were to be replayed 5 times the result would be 4-1 to Sweden I wont take dat easy...becasue we had our chances too.

Based on possession this and chances dat..is all joket talk.

goals win matches and de US scored.....level cut arse!

      The problem with his description, truetrini, is that whenever a goalkeeper muffs a shot taken by an opponent and the ensuing "goalmouth scramble" results in a goal, most reporters would be inclined to describe it AS a "goalmouth scramble".......or an error on the part of the 'keeper.....or both  But this journalist that is clearly pro-usa chose to fucus on his perception that the brazilian scorer outmuscled a defender rather than maybe the defender trying to outmuscle the Brazilian.  Freddy Adu was clearly the man of the match and is usa's key player for whom this shambolic Brazilian defence had absolutely no answer.  Altidore is a pure goalscorer and nothing else and if he had a little more to offer in the playmaking and workrate department the game would have been a blowout for the usa. The domination of the Brazilian midfield needs no further comment and their problem up front, IMHO, is that when they created the opportunities for themselves to take some long and medium rang shots at the americans' goal, they didn't  I think the american goalkeeper performed very, very well for what was asked of him, but a couple of the good saves he made were low percentage shots on the part of the Brazilians anyway.  They seemed to have wanted to walk the ball all the way into the six-yard box and that is not something that even the mighty Brazil are going to do consistently against any american team.  Defending is what they are really best at at all levels of the men's teams and the Brazilian forwards needed to change their approach to goal sometimes.
  
    As far as your view that Sweden would not have beaten us 4 times out of 5 or 9 times out of ten, well I don't know what game you were watching but, for all the joy and feelgood that game brought us as a nation, Sweden were far superior to us on that field.  (albeit we played a man down on a sending off that Avery John did NOT deserve).  Shaka played the game of his life as did the rest of the team while Sweden were just as guilty of trying to score the same way Brazil were against the us the other night: the took very few long and medium range shots when they had the opportunities to do so and played into our defensive hands.  We defended our asses off but we really had ONE good chance to score.  It's not like we had Sweden's defence on their heels like we did against Paraguay.  Sweden never showed that they felt threatened by us, so I really don't know where we muffed alot of chances.  

    

[Mango Chow!]

USA ain't go stop talking bout this win for a long time. As they should cause know what, they cut Brazil arse send them superior skillfull samba boys back home to watch the games on tv.

     Two games hadda play this evening before that happens, padna.  Gambia hadda win or draw against Portugal, Canada hadda beat Congo real, real bad or Congo hadda win or draw against Canada......the result that I think is more inclined to happen.   

[saga pinto]

So allyuh think the U.S. could take it all,or they'll fade like when caucasian folks tan last for only two days.

[Mango Chow!]

Brazil (BRA) Statistics USA (USA)
23 Shots 12
15 Shots on goal 8
1 Goals 2
13 Fouls Committed 25
24 Fouls Suffered 13
4 Corner kicks 7
3 Free kicks 2
0 / 0 Penalty Kicks (Goals/Shots) 0 / 0
2 Offsides 2
0 Own goals 0
2 Yellow cards 3
0 Red Cards 0
28 Actual playing time 26
51% Possession (%) 49%

Base on the over stats US wasn't outplayed. If you pressure any Brazil team they'll crack. France did it in the World Cup and Poland and US did it i the U20s.

        ........so if you were asked to use these same stats to determine which team outplayed the other, (1) what would you conclude, and why?
  (2) how does it tie in with your accompanying statement?

[truetrini]

according to those stats I would say failry even game.  And I watched the game stats substantiate my views.  And the ZUSA are right to talk about this for a long time..same as we do with regards to Sweden and Engand!

Yuh earn yuh pips..show dem off.

[kingman]

I don't think it hard to admit that the USA have one of the strongest teams in the U-20 WC. They have a very good chance of winning it.

Portugal, Argentina, USA are my 3 picks to take home the title. I hope it comes back to the Concacaf region. I not going to lie, sometimes the USA does really need to get some cut tail to cool down their arrogance a little. But this time around, we have to admit....they are playing some very good football under this Dutch coach and I loving it.

They also have an advantage in that most of the fields the games are being played on is turf. The Brazilian and Argentines both complained to FIFA and the Canadian football federation about not having grass field since this was the first time players from both countries played on turf.

This is another advantage USA has. They have a lot going for them. The WC is in North America, they have a lot more support than other countries, they use to the turf, they have very good players and a coach who have them playing very tactical.

Kingman

[Bakes]

I wouldnt say brazil used physical play to equalize. An american head the ball to the top of the box and a brazilian cap two defenders before letting go a scissors. The rebound was scrappy (look like an own goal actually) but saying the goal was physical play is a lil misleading.

Big up to the US though. Adu looked impressive.

I peeped that...after yet another replay, I was like "but wait, was that ah own goal??"

[Mango Chow!]

according to those stats I would say failry even game.  And I watched the game stats substantiate my views.  And the ZUSA are right to talk about this for a long time..same as we do with regards to Sweden and Engand!

Yuh earn yuh pips..show dem off.

    And here is where people does get tie-up wit "stats" (which, by the way, has become more and more of an issue in world football as the americans have attained more and more prominence in the sport): the first thing that I can argue is that maybe the americans used more "physical play" to win the game than Brazil did to tie it, like the aforementioned journalist/article declared. (they committed twice as many fouls, and why would a team that is so even or even superior, as some posters have suggested, need to commit so many fouls to win a game?); the possession percentage alone doesn't tell you what part of the field either team enjoyed their possession, but, put it together with Brazil's (alleged) 23 shots to usa's 12 (15 and 8 respectively were on goal) it jumps out at you and speaks volumes of where there possession may have taken place.  Without looking at the game, one would think that Brazill peppered the american goal with shots, but since we don't have the goalkeepers' stats posted and broken down into easy saves or difficult ones, how can one tell how much significance those "shots/shots on goal" really have in determining how evenly or unevenly this game was really played?  
   The bottom line is that stats don't mean too much by themselves: you still have to watch the game, and you have to do it through fair and unbiased lenses.  alot of the Brazil haters show that they are unable to do that.  Brazil will continue to be the most skilful, entertaining, humble and successful footballing country in the world, no matter how much allyuh hate them for being that.  They won't win every competition every time out.  Teams like the usa will have their day against and have their way with Brazil from time to time and they should enjoy those days.  They won't come regularly. The master will let the dog know what it fells like to sleep in his bed from time to time, but in the end, the dog's place is in the yard.

[Mango Chow!]

I don't think it hard to admit that the USA have one of the strongest teams in the U-20 WC. They have a very good chance of winning it.

Portugal, Argentina, USA are my 3 picks to take home the title. I hope it comes back to the Concacaf region. I not going to lie, sometimes the USA does really need to get some cut tail to cool down their arrogance a little. But this time around, we have to admit....they are playing some very good football under this Dutch coach and I loving it.

They also have an disadvantage in that most of the field the games are being played on is turf. The Brazilian and Argentines both complained to FIFA and the Canadian football federation about not having grass field since this was the first time players from both countries played on turf.

This is another disadvantage USA has. They have a lot going for them. The WC is in North America, they have a lot more support than other countries, they use to the turf, they have very good players and a coach who have them playing very tactical.

Kingman

   Kingman, yuh confusing me there.....wouldn't it be to the americans' advantage that the games are being pplayed on astro-turf, especially if most of their players play in the mls msl misled?  (I haven't checked where their player-pool is from, but I presume......)  But you do bring up something that has been bothering me that fifa is intent on bringing this astro-turf in a wholesale way into football and it sucks.  I watched our U-17 team against Peru @ Marvin Lee and I saw where there were plenty of times that players' control (especially their close control) on both sides were betrayed by the bounce of the ball on the turf.   I wouldn't go as far as to say that that is why usa beat Brazil, in fact, I don't think it was even much of a factor.  However, I think it would affect players that are only used to playing on grass.  Also, as a fledgling GK coach myself, I absolutely REFUSE  to train young GK's on the surface.  Over time and repetition of throwing themselves around on that surface I worry about them developing orthopoedic problems. 

   

[ttcom]

Brazil in a difficult position

http://www.fifa.com/u20worldcup/standings/index.html

[kicker]

I wouldnt say brazil used physical play to equalize. An american head the ball to the top of the box and a brazilian cap two defenders before letting go a scissors. The rebound was scrappy (look like an own goal actually) but saying the goal was physical play is a lil misleading.

Big up to the US though. Adu looked impressive.

I peeped that...after yet another replay, I was like "but wait, was that ah own goal??"

Yeah...pretty tough to see who got the final touch- benefit of the doubt to attacker I guess....

Agree that the goal involved some skill in the buildup, and not just physical dominance. If anything it was goal keeping blunder to cough up the ball in the danger zone as opposed to pushing it out wider

brave goalkeeping to try to swallow up the rebound though....coulda sustained a serious injury.

[Bakes]

    And here is where people does get tie-up wit "stats" (which, by the way, has become more and more of an issue in world football as the americans have attained more and more prominence in the sport): the first thing that I can argue is that maybe the americans used more "physical play" to win the game than Brazil did to tie it, like the aforementioned journalist/article declared. (they committed twice as many fouls, and why would a team that is so even or even superior, as some posters have suggested, need to commit so many fouls to win a game?); the possession percentage alone doesn't tell you what part of the field either team enjoyed their possession, but, put it together with Brazil's (alleged) 23 shots to usa's 12 (15 and 8 respectively were on goal) it jumps out at you and speaks volumes of where there possession may have taken place.  Without looking at the game, one would think that Brazill peppered the american goal with shots, but since we don't have the goalkeepers' stats posted and broken down into easy saves or difficult ones, how can one tell how much significance those "shots/shots on goal" really have in determining how evenly or unevenly this game was really played?  
   The bottom line is that stats don't mean too much by themselves: you still have to watch the game, and you have to do it through fair and unbiased lenses.  alot of the Brazil haters show that they are unable to do that.  Brazil will continue to be the most skilful, entertaining, humble and successful footballing country in the world, no matter how much allyuh hate them for being that.  They won't win every competition every time out.  Teams like the usa will have their day against and have their way with Brazil from time to time and they should enjoy those days.  They won't come regularly. The master will let the dog know what it fells like to sleep in his bed from time to time, but in the end, the dog's place is in the yard.

Nonsense.

[kicker]

Brazil will continue to be the most skilful, entertaining, humble and successful footballing country in the world, no matter how much allyuh hate them for being that.

humble? Brazil? yuh discredit yuh post with that assertion.

Brazil is traditionally one of the, if not the most arrogant nation with regard to football...

[Filho]

Brazil will continue to be the most skilful, entertaining, humble and successful footballing country in the world, no matter how much allyuh hate them for being that.

humble? Brazil? yuh discredit yuh post with that assertion.

Brazil is traditionally one of the, if not the most arrogant nation with regard to football...

Not sure how you measuring that? Yeah..the Brazilians have said and done things that simply come down to pure arrogance. But for every act of perceived Brazilian arrogance, you can come up with examples of Brazilian humility. For every Romario, there is a Cafu or Kaka. What I will say about Brazil is they believe that they should win every competition they enter, even if they send a B team. I think it comes across as arrogant or entitled, but it's important to feel that way to develop a winning mentality. And 99% of the time, Brazilians are very good losers. They come in thinking they are the best and when they get licks, they smile and give you your props. They aren't perfect, but I think their general sportsmanship in defeat, explains away a lot of the perceived arrogance. Plus, they are probably the most religious team..can't think ofg any team that makes  a point of a team prayer after winning any tournament...maybe others do it and I never noticed..but I think that is a real sign of humility

[kicker]

Brazil will continue to be the most skilful, entertaining, humble and successful footballing country in the world, no matter how much allyuh hate them for being that.

humble? Brazil? yuh discredit yuh post with that assertion.

Brazil is traditionally one of the, if not the most arrogant nation with regard to football...

Not sure how you measuring that? Yeah..the Brazilians have said and done things that simply come down to pure arrogance. But for every act of perceived Brazilian arrogance, you can come up with examples of Brazilian humility. For every Romario, there is a Cafu or Kaka. What I will say about Brazil is they believe that they should win every competition they enter, even if they send a B team. I think it comes across as arrogant or entitled, but it's important to feel that way to develop a winning mentality. And 99% of the time, Brazilians are very good losers. They come in thinking they are the best and when they get licks, they smile and give you your props. They aren't perfect, but I think their general sportsmanship in defeat, explains away a lot of the perceived arrogance. Plus, they are probably the most religious team..can't think ofg any team that makes  a point of a team prayer after winning any tournament...maybe others do it and I never noticed..but I think that is a real sign of humility

You are right- Can't measure it, and any assertion of arrogance is loose, but when I think of Brazil & football I don't think of humble...esp not "most humble" as implied by chow...

I think very confident and borderline arrogant...charming, sportsmanlike & religious notwithstanding

I can't give specifics right now but I def remember occasions where a Brazilian player would dismiss their opponents in the press b4 facing them....(the one that comes to mind is Turkey pre WC 2002)

Might just be my perception

[Marcos]

Trinidad and Tobago were the humblest team in the World Cup last year. Brazil however are generally quite humble. You hardly ever see them talking shit about other teams in the press and the plaers are often very complementary of their competition even though they know they gonna blaze dem

[kingman]

I don't think it hard to admit that the USA have one of the strongest teams in the U-20 WC. They have a very good chance of winning it.

Portugal, Argentina, USA are my 3 picks to take home the title. I hope it comes back to the Concacaf region. I not going to lie, sometimes the USA does really need to get some cut tail to cool down their arrogance a little. But this time around, we have to admit....they are playing some very good football under this Dutch coach and I loving it.

They also have an disadvantage in that most of the field the games are being played on is turf. The Brazilian and Argentines both complained to FIFA and the Canadian football federation about not having grass field since this was the first time players from both countries played on turf.

This is another disadvantage USA has. They have a lot going for them. The WC is in North America, they have a lot more support than other countries, they use to the turf, they have very good players and a coach who have them playing very tactical.

Kingman

   Kingman, yuh confusing me there.....wouldn't it be to the americans' advantage that the games are being pplayed on astro-turf, especially if most of their players play in the mls msl misled?  (I haven't checked where their player-pool is from, but I presume......)  But you do bring up something that has been bothering me that fifa is intent on bringing this astro-turf in a wholesale way into football and it sucks.  I watched our U-17 team against Peru @ Marvin Lee and I saw where there were plenty of times that players' control (especially their close control) on both sides were betrayed by the bounce of the ball on the turf.   I wouldn't go as far as to say that that is why usa beat Brazil, in fact, I don't think it was even much of a factor.  However, I think it would affect players that are only used to playing on grass.  Also, as a fledgling GK coach myself, I absolutely REFUSE  to train young GK's on the surface.  Over time and repetition of throwing themselves around on that surface I worry about them developing orthopoedic problems. 

   

It was a typo which I just realized. I meant "another advantage" not "another disadvantage". I will correct it. Thanks!

As for saying that Brazil lost to USA because of the turf, I did not say that. I said that they and Argentina are complaining to FIFA and the Canadian authorities because they were not told before that the surfaces were turf and they never played on turf before (which obviously would be a factor).

Kingman

[saga pinto]

Trinidad and Tobago were the humblest team in the World Cup last year. Brazil however are generally quite humble. You hardly ever see them talking shit about other teams in the press and the plaers are often very complementary of their competition even though they know they gonna blaze dem

Very well said marcos,as history has it,the USA is not humble at all,quite the contrary to brazil,U.S. footballers are very arrogant,usually using distasteful comments about there opponents and if necessary they'll go after individual players creditability.........   

[Bakes]

Trinidad and Tobago were the humblest team in the World Cup last year. Brazil however are generally quite humble. You hardly ever see them talking shit about other teams in the press and the plaers are often very complementary of their competition even though they know they gonna blaze dem

Very well said marcos,as history has it,the USA is not humble at all,quite the contrary to brazil,U.S. footballers are very arrogant,usually using distasteful comments about there opponents and if necessary they'll go after individual players creditability.........   

I wonder where allyuh men does find these things from enuh? lol... Care to cite examples?  From my recollection there is nothing about the US teams over the years to suggest arrogance.  Some may have played with a chip on their shoulders because they know they have to do a lot just to gain the respect of their opponents.  Lalas' recent comments aside (which don't really count) I can't recall any moments of arrogance that readily come to mind...which is why I often chuckle when I hear folks accuse the Americans of arrogance.  You'd swear Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld was playing midfield link for the Eagles, lol.

At any rate, I never thought of Brazil as an arrogant team, but certainly not humble...they've been arrogant in a Jordanesque way, as much as I couldn't stand him...it was more supreme confidence.  That I have no problem with...but all this talk it peripheral anyways.  As is this red-herring of a claim that the Americans somehow have something to do with the proliferation of "stats" in football...when in truth you find such mainly in Iberian and Latin football...curious.

By the way, would the 'Brazil haters' please stand up and self-identify...I have a feeling if we siddung here and wait fuh Mango chutney to come point them out we'll be here for a while.

[Mango Chow!]

I don't think it hard to admit that the USA have one of the strongest teams in the U-20 WC. They have a very good chance of winning it.

Portugal, Argentina, USA are my 3 picks to take home the title. I hope it comes back to the Concacaf region. I not going to lie, sometimes the USA does really need to get some cut tail to cool down their arrogance a little. But this time around, we have to admit....they are playing some very good football under this Dutch coach and I loving it.

They also have an disadvantage in that most of the field the games are being played on is turf. The Brazilian and Argentines both complained to FIFA and the Canadian football federation about not having grass field since this was the first time players from both countries played on turf.

This is another disadvantage USA has. They have a lot going for them. The WC is in North America, they have a lot more support than other countries, they use to the turf, they have very good players and a coach who have them playing very tactical.

Kingman

   Kingman, yuh confusing me there.....wouldn't it be to the americans' advantage that the games are being pplayed on astro-turf, especially if most of their players play in the mls msl misled?  (I haven't checked where their player-pool is from, but I presume......)  But you do bring up something that has been bothering me that fifa is intent on bringing this astro-turf in a wholesale way into football and it sucks.  I watched our U-17 team against Peru @ Marvin Lee and I saw where there were plenty of times that players' control (especially their close control) on both sides were betrayed by the bounce of the ball on the turf.   I wouldn't go as far as to say that that is why usa beat Brazil, in fact, I don't think it was even much of a factor.  However, I think it would affect players that are only used to playing on grass.  Also, as a fledgling GK coach myself, I absolutely REFUSE  to train young GK's on the surface.  Over time and repetition of throwing themselves around on that surface I worry about them developing orthopoedic problems. 

   

It was a typo which I just realized. I meant "another advantage" not "another disadvantage". I will correct it. Thanks!

As for saying that Brazil lost to USA because of the turf, I did not say that. I said that they and Argentina are complaining to FIFA and the Canadian authorities because they were not told before that the surfaces were turf and they never played on turf before (which obviously would be a factor).

Kingman

   Nah, I wasn't trying to imply that that is what you said.....I was just thinking out loud on that.........