I’d say the US team are by and large competent. As has been stated, they make the most of their abilities as a group rather than as individuals. A few other national teams could learn from their example(im looking at you, England). Todays game was weird. Its hard to say if the US played badly or were just caught defending too much in order to not lose out on goal difference.
That’s what I’m always thinking. They have the same physical, unrelenting way of playing, a solid defense and just the simple will to win. But, and that’s a big but, we always had, between all those brave workers, several great players who made a difference by individual class. The U.S. haven’t yet produced a world class player, and you need some of those to win a tournament (unless you’re Greece in 2004).
The quicker pace probably benefited Germany.
Guzan is really good, and I would have been just as confident with him in the goal as Howard. Frankly I could have just as easily seen him getting the start.
We still have those dodgy places in the back line, with no Lahm there, but I was heartened by the ball movement, some of which looked effortless. I expect Algeria will apply heavy pressure in the first half of the match… I think as long as Germany can hold up for 15 or 20 minutes, they should be fine.
This is arguably untrue, at least for Tim Howard and Clint Dempsey.
He’s had a bit of an unlucky career. At the club level, Friedel lasted longer than most, and at the national level he started getting recognition when Howard still had a decade of high level play left. The US has been spoiled at keeper for a long time, hopefully the next generation keeps it up.
I think it depends on what you mean by world class, but the US doesn’t have anyone in the same class of Ronaldo or Messi. The US does the best they can with what they have, but until they have someone that is magic with the ball in the attacking end they won’t be in the top tier.
If your criteria for “world class player” is “must be one of the top two players in the world,” then sure. But exactly two teams have players in the same class as Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi. And one of those two teams was just booted out of the World Cup in part thanks to the US’s efforts.
Yeah, to some people world class means a world best 11 type player. To others it means they could play in any league in the world. The US doesn’t have the former, but I think Donovan, Dempsey, several of the GKs, and going back a bit, perhaps John O’Brien or Claudio Reyna, at their peak, fit the latter.
Messi or Ronaldo are a ridiculous bar for world class though. They’re both in the top 20 players to ever live. Messi in the top 5, probably. If he’s the bar, Germany has never had a world class player.
Aye, that’s the problem, and at the same time, the * beauty* of a “round robin”.
Yes you have some soft spots, but even if Germany were to field a team made up almost entirely of the guys that sat on the bench today, Algeria would have <1% chance of winning. The reason it’s not zero is because at this WC anything can happen, such as 2 or 3 Germans getting themselves red-carded in the first half. (Which is what it would take -even against a Mannschaft of 10 the best Algeria would likely get is to make it to the pk part). No knock on Algeria, they showed a lot of heart, and courage, and I’m delighted they got to the 16-round. But the gulf in individual talent and experience is just to great.
Ok, so they don’t have a player in the class of Suarez, Neymar, Van Persie, Xavi, Rooney, or Ribery either. In terms of individual player ranking for players in the World Cup, where would you put Dempsey?
The U.S. has good players across the board, play well together, and put forth great effort. That will get you out of the group stage. But when the US goes against teams that are organized with talent across the board plus some true stars, the difference is readily apparent.
Agree with the comment on what a high bar that is, being as good as CR and Messi.
Though he hasn’t shown it so far—maybe due to a nagging foot injury, at least according to some of the commenters at the shin guardian—wouldn’t Michael Bradley be ahead of Dempsey in that ranking? Watching the Belgium/ROK game, I am not overwhelmed by the skill of Belgium. In fact, am I whacked out for preferring a probable Belgium - (knock on wood) Argentina series route, to a Algeria - France route to the semis? France looks really, really good.
Still, I didn’t think the US would make it this far; they’re playing with house money, IMHO.
Yeah, “World Class” is an ill-defined term. I’d go with “could be in contention for any team in the world”. The US has no such players and, for balance, neither does England (where I’m from).
And the latest controversy:
Video here:
Too bad that these things happen, but not the reason Russia went out… in general: if your teams score 4 goals in total at two world cups, maybe you’re not cut out for international football.
- No. I think the Brazilian defence will managed to hold onto the Chileans.
- No, Suarez, no chance.
- France is too good. 3-0
- Germans are clinical. I agree
- I don’t know. The Netherlands need at least one implosion per tournament and, I think this is as good a time as any. So Mexico on Penalties
- Costa Rica is too good for Greece on present form.
- Yup, true
- No, I think the US would go through here.
But then, who would have imagined that there would be no Spain, Italy, Portugal or England at this stage…
So who, knows maybe we are looking at an Algeria-US final?
Ever since we secured our qualification for the World Cup back in October, I’ve thought that our current team has been way over-hyped. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s clearly the best we’ve had since the 1980s but listening to fans and journalists, it was almost as if reaching at least the quarter finals was a done deal.
I disagreed.
First, while our qualification campaign was impressive, it was more of a return to form after a particularly bad decade than the major acheivement that some claimed. Between 1980 and 2002, Belgium qualified for 9 out of 12 international competitions. It was not qualifying for a single one between 2004 and 2012 that was the anomaly, not the other way round.
Then, there is the question of our performance since October. It’s been less than stellar:
[ul]
[li]15-10-2013 Wales 1-1 World Cup Qualifier[/li][li]14-11-2013 Colombia 0-2[/li][li]19-11-2013 Japan 2-3[/li][li]5- 3-2014 Ivory Coast 2-2[/li][li]26- 5-2014 Luxembourg 6-1[/li][li]1- 6-2014 Sweden 2-0[/li][li]7- 6-2014 Tunisia 1-0[/li][/ul]
The draw against Wales and the loss against Japan were particularly worrying but all the matches were disappointing. Even the big win against Luxemburg was deceiving (I mean, it’s always been one of the most reliably weak teams in Europe).
So far, I can’t say that I’ve seen a great Belgian team.
I still think we’ll reach the quarter finals, though. But without a convincing performance.
From my local paper (well, local where I grew up). Apparently she’s done this for her “Keep Cov in Cov” campaign poster, which is a protest against the owners moving the club out of the city due to a spat with the stadium owners:
I can’t help but think that with the version of the shirt she seems to be wearing everyone thought she was an Argentina fan …
If we’re talking peak level, I’d say Dempsey reached higher than Bradley has. If you asked me a year or six months ago I’d definitely say Bradley is the better player, but he hasn’t had a great tournament.
Well certainly Belgium would not be the first team of international stars to under perform. I have not been impressed with Belgium this tournament, but then again there is the fact you have won without playing well. This in itself is an art.
Can you tell me just how “patchy” this Belgian team/squad is? We all know your best players, but are you struggling to fill certain areas of the team with quality? Im thinking along the lines of Wales here. Some great, great players in certain positions, some awful players in other positions.