An Attempt to Make Sense of the Noise
By Jason Kuenle
Today the US soccer blogosphere is filled with excuses, claims that there can be no excuses, and choruses of “I told you so” and “Fire Bradley”. I’ve already seen the result of this game used to justify positions that when put in a larger context are ridiculous.
To me, the word "excuse" has two connotations, a justification or a reason. While there is no justification for last night’s lost, there are plenty of reasons. Some of those reasons are long term problems that are cause for concern, some are short term problems that can be corrected, and some are problems that existed only for this game. Player shortcomings are long-term problems. The depth chart in general is a long term problem. The tactical decisions in one game are not. A specific injury is not. The condition of the field is not.
The list of excuses that will be spewed out will be longer than this post, but here’s my breakdown of the three things that surprised me last night and what I am and am not concerned about. I won’t go too much into my concerns as I’ll likely post them as separate entries later.
How disorganized the US played
Never in my life have I seen a US side as disorganized as I did last night. But as bad as it was, I’m not overly concerned about the disorganization as a whole. The US has never been a highly disciplined side. Their defensive shape often breaks down resulting in shots on goal that should never have happened. Often, the speed and size of the US and the quality of our keepers is enough to overcome most of these breakdowns and end the game with a number of shots conceded, but only a goal or two. Last night was not one of those nights. It seemed that no one knew what their defensive responsibilities were and the tackling was very poor. The poor tackling is inexcusable, but I don’t see it as a trend. As for the coverage breakdowns, I think the inexperienced fullbacks, the new formation, noise level, and lack of preparation time all combined cause the missed defensive assignments.
My concern in this area is the lack of depth in the backline. From who our best left back is to who our third center back is, the US depth chart on the back line is a mess. Yesterday’s game featured our “C” team right back and a “B"(?) team left midfielder playing left back and the results speak for themselves.
That we lost the physical battle
The US lost the battle of physicality in the game. I am very surpised, but this worries me none. Almost no member of the US side was at 100% last night. Altidore is coming off of injury. Beasley hasn’t seen playing time in months. Dempsey, Howard, Bradley, Torres, Bocanegra, and Onyewu were all coming off important games at the ends of their club seasons. Add to that no Ching up top and no Hejduk in the back. Finally, Altidore, Bradley, Dempsey, and Onyewu were all sitting on yellows. As I stated in the beginning, this is not a justification. Even without everyone at 100%, last night’s performance was still terrible. While I think this may continue to be a problem in the Honduras game given the short turnaround time, I don’t think it speaks to the current quality of the team. In most games, the US will still have a physical advantage.
That at no time were we ever in control
After the first goal was scored, the game became about control. If the US had gained control of the game in the next ten minutes, it likely would have been a more competitive game; however, the US lost the control battle as well as the game last night. Control is about more than possession. With possession, it is easier to have control, but it is not necessary. Controlling a game is somewhat about possession, but it's more about positioning, about movement, and about flow. The US had none of these yesterday. This is a problem. If a 4-3-3 hadn’t been announced as the formation, I’m not sure from watching the game what I would have thought the formation was or who was playing where. There were times in the game when US players were nearly running into each other in the offensive third. The tactical decisions yesterday were frightening, and if they continue then perhaps it is time for Bradley to go. However, if Bradley learns from his mistakes, those problems can be quickly fixed without overhauling the coaching staff and destablizing the team. The tactics used in the next four games will be enough to know whether to worry about this or not.
It is a sad game when the redeeming moments are the ones where I blamed the field for the US shortcomings and not the players or tactics. There were several balls served up the sides that if they had been on grass would have been perfectly weighted passes, but there they skipped through passed the endline. With that tactic being such a huge part of the US game, its absence was noteable and ultimately took away chances that the US might have had.
Finally, my biggest concern, is the lack of a midfield general. In the last two road games, the US has given up early goals. Currently, the US lacks a composed central midfielder who can help stave off the attacking onslaught to get the game to the point when it settles down into a consistent rhythm while also having the vision to be able to get forward and orchestrate attacks later in the game. Perhaps Edu is
that player, perhaps Bradley will become it, but until a midfield rock can be found the US will struggle with games like this.
So much can be said about this game. I don’t think this was a fluke loss because some of the shortcomings in this game are becoming trends. I also don’t think it spells disaster for the US either. If the US beats Honduras and gets four points in South Africa, people will give this loss less emphasis than it deserves. If the US goes 0-for-June, then it will be undeservingly viewed as the beginning of the end. Ultimately, only time will tell us what from this game is just noise and what is truly substance.
Jason Kuenle has been a guest contributor for Match Fit USA since winning the MFUSA writing contest. He can be e-mailed at secondhalfsub@gmail.com.
