3 Thoughts on US vs. Mexico (#DosaCero)

1. A “C” Team?

I keep hearing (from Mexico fans, of course) that we played their “C” team last night, and I’m tired of it; here’s why:

1. I’m fairly positive nobody can name 22 Mexican players who should have started over every Mexican who played last night. If you can, I’ll be more than happy to rescind my argument, until then, we might as well say that the US played with their “E” team or something like that because, hey, we don’t need anything to back it up with right? Excuses…

2. While we’re on that subject, the US was far from full strength as well. The only two players I can see being on a full strength side who would, say, play in a World Cup qualifier are Diskerud and Bradley. MAYBE Yedlin and MAYBE Gonzalez, but they didn’t even get consistent minutes at the World Cup last year, in fact, neither did Diskerud. In addition, our team was VASTLY domestically based, just as the Mexicans say their team was.

3. In the end, IT DOESN’T MATTER! We beat Mexico. That’s the bottom line. The game wasn’t an official FIFA date, so European clubs were never going to agree to release their best players, but both teams agreed to play this match, nobody forced them. Herrera was perfectly welcome to field whatever players he wanted to, and those are the ones he chose, and Klinnsman chose his guys. We won.

2. The Kid from Stanford

When the starting lineups were released before the game started, I texted my friend these exact words: “WHY ARE WE STARTING A COLLEGE PLAYER?!?!?!?!?!” I’ll be the first to admit when I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am (big surprise huh?) and here’s why: Jordan Morris wasn’t really that good. He was in the right place at the right time and, yes, that takes a striker’s instinct, and when the ball fell to him he finished. I’ll give him that. But I think the fact that in the post-game review show the only other highlights they could show of his entire game was him sprinting down the sideline twice only to get the ball taken away speaks to the reality that he really didn’t do much else. Strikers need to play the front line, holding the ball up and creating chances, and I just didn’t see him doing that. Keep in mind that I really like the kid, and I hope the best for him, I just wonder if the senior side is the best place for him.

Why are we starting an amateur in a professional game? I’m all for growing our youth talent, but isn’t that what the U-21 team is for? Again, well done to the kid. I can’t even imagine how that must have felt to score a goal in a game of that magnitude (regardless of it being a friendly, US vs. Mexico is ALWAYS a big game) with the odds, and the world for that matter, slated against you. I just think we shouldn’t get too hasty. The tragic case of Freddy Adu comes to mind…

3. The Defense Finally got it Right

The stat before the game was: In the last 15 games, we conceded a total of 15 goals in the last 15 minutes of those games. We got through arguably our biggest game of the year, with an away crowd (although in a technically “home” stadium) with not only a win, but a clean sheet, which I think is the larger story. I have nothing but praise for Gonzalez and Alvarado teaming in the back line. I also think Beckerman put in a typically hard-working shift shielding the center backs.

Not only did they not concede, Rimando and Yarbrough had very little to do the whole game, AND the characteristic blunders and close calls were hard to find from our defense. Yes, it’s one game, but it’s a start. What I hope to see from Klinnsman now is building on that progress, instead of mixing it up again. But, for now, #DosaCero is a pretty good feeling.


Joga Bonito


Dallin

Thoughts on US vs. Chile

Let's get something clear from the beginning: It is never ever ok to lose. I've perused a number of articles since the disappointing USMNT match against Chile yesterday that have attempted to convince readers that the American's recent form of 3 losses and 2 draws is ok because we're "making progress." No, it isn't ok. I don't care if we're rebuilding, or experimenting or our players aren't "match fit." There is never an excuse for losing. If you lose, you simply weren't as good as the opposition. And that is a serious problem when we're playing a nearly entire Chile B team. Yes, the preseason has only just begun for the majority of the squad who took the pitch in Rancagua, and yes we were experimenting with a new formation, and yes we were playing a few fairly inexperienced players, but so what? I'm just as supportive as the next guy of the idea of being able to learn things about the team from losses, but don't ever tell me that it's "ok" that we lost.

The 3-5-2 has been all the hype for the past few days. Naturally, those who wanted to explain why we couldn't beat a sub-strength Chile team pointed to the fact that we were experimenting with a new formation, and surely the players weren't ready to play in it yet. Isn't that what this entire training camp has been for? To train the team to play the way the coach wants them to? Regardless, none of the goals Chile scored were as a result of the formation. Their first was plain Jane bad marking on Besler's part. The defense wasn't stretched because there were only three in the back; Besler just didn't track his man into the box. This was the source of so many of our problems in Brazil last summer. Our defense just doesn't seem to be able to concentrate for 90 minutes on marking everyone all the time, and that needs fixing. Quick. The other two goals Chile scored were after we had switched back to our "normal" 4-4-2 that the players were supposed to be more comfortable with. 

The thing about a 3-5-2 is that really it can end up being a 5-3-2, with the wingers tracking back the majority of the time to play defense. The problem yesterday was that we didn't have that. I can remember only a couple times I saw Brek Shea track back, and even Deandre Yedlin, who is supposedly a defender, didn't come back nearly enough. Compound that with three center-backs and you'll get some real problems as the attack comes in from the wings. 

The formation did offer a good deal in attack, and it did seem as though Bradley and Dempsey felt more comfortable in their roles than in the majority of their time in Brazil. Altidore also showed some glimpses of the encouraging heights he reached with the national team in the year leading up to the 2014 World Cup. But we only needed one game to show that all the attacking prowess in the world can't make up for instability in the back.

I wonder how many times Jones will get to leave the defense horribly exposed by one of his marauding runs before Klinnsman will realize that he isn't a proper center back. Yes, he has defensive qualities, but that doesn't make him suited for the center back role. What was wrong with playing him as a defensive mid? We desperately need his mettle in the attack, and when he does have a foray forward, there are still center backs behind him to fill the space. The number of second chances the Chileans got was incredible. Their third goal came when a rebounded shot found a wide open Mark Gonzalez who simply had to slot it home. The Jones experiment has failed. Let it be.

In closing, lets have a shout out for El Capitano, Deuce, Clint Dempsey. There were numerous times when Clint, and keep in mind he's 31, received the ball and cut or twisted his way past Chilean defenders with the dexterity of a 21-year-old. I have nothing but praise for everything Dempsey has done for the national team and for the work he puts in EVERY game. Now that Donovan has retired and Howard isn't currently playing with the national team, Clint deserves to be considered the best we have. 

Joga Bonito.

Dallin