That's true, but we don't have any evidence that these players lacked professionalism in anticipation of this tournament ... at least I don't. I think the question here really resolves around how well or poorly the technical staff integrated this squad ... and how well or poorly the technical staff approached key tactical moments during these matches. It's clear they did some things well. It's also clear that many of our on field deficiencies came from the sidelines.
While I accept the issue you raise is fundamental, based on the performance indicators on Friday and today I don't see our long-term development deficiencies as being the decisive problem in either game.
Frankly, I get the sense that the key problem for us is our inability to manage the dimensions of the football field. Yeah, we couldn't convincingly solve the puzzle of how to move the ball and keep it ...Tellingly, we also couldn't move personnel up, down and across the field. I think that's a symptom of poor field management. The speed of play in both games was different, yet we still had the same problem ... how to conduct the ball and players up and down the field in a consistent way.
I would love to see some thoughtful, balanced attacking/defensive football verus Honduras ... even if ah hadda dream about it.
Would you attribute this inability or lack of addressing this defficiency (field management and transitioning across the field) on the quality of teams - minus Canada and even then some of the key guys were rested - we competed against in the build up phase to the tournament, which may have masked these phases of the game?
Or do you think the technical staff was incapable of recognizing such transitional moments within the smaller moments (big picture now) of the game and how this would have affected future strategies during the tournament?
I agree with the sentiment Kicker expressed on another thread: I don't think our players are dumb. Similarly, I don't think that Angus Eve or Anton Corneal are idiots. Both have been around the game long enough to be observant of match situations. It would be unfair to the technical staff to speculate without knowing more or without having observed what was emphasized during the road to Cali.
I don't think a lack of recognition re: transition is what hampered Eve. However, sometimes coaches overcompensate tactically out of caution rooted in a team's perceived liabilities.
While transition issues could definitely be masked while playing slower opponents or even during internal team practices,
I think here there was likely a recognition prior to competition that we would have problems transitioning. Hence, the tactical deployment we saw applied.
Our lines were static. The back four was rigid. The flank defenders rarely got forward. Where this happens, the midfield tends not to have an attacking outlet aside from the 2 players playing in advanced positions ... so most of the dynamic play must emanate from the middle. Essentially, everything falls on the midfield and the central mids in particular, as a result. Where either or both get(s) "sucked in" - attacking or defensive wise - space is conceded for the opponent to play into.
We witnessed large areas of vacant space 20 yards north and south of the center circle during the first game. Static lines playing against a dynamic opponent that transitioned at will. This also likely explains the absence of improvisation by attacking players (unwillingness to take on their markers, unwillingness to dribble, concern of what would happen defensively if they lost the ball, unwillingness of support players to get too far forward etc.)
Field size is an inherent aspect of field management. A horrible transition team can look great on a small field ... say, Barbados playing @ home in WC qualifying versus playing that atrocious game they played away v the US ... an extreme example? yes but the point is where the solution boils down to stringing effective passes together rather than movement/running ... you're faced with 2 prospects: (1) the need for more passes to get into a dangerous position or (2) the need for passes of longer range to get dangerous ... consequences: predictable play, interruption of passes and the long ball outlet solution that is over-relied on as a solution.
I suspect we overcompensated defensively and paid the price by having the scoreline magnified when the opponent realized we were uni-dimensional in our play.
+++
Question: how many offside calls did we get in our favour?