Open Thread: USA vs Mexico
Ok, good if Arriola was terrible. And to be clear, I like Nagbe, just worried about fatigue issues. He looked to be a step behind on that chance Mexico just missed.
Damn, Pulisic couldn't get a bend on that ball.
LOL, they kicked the corner back. Whistle. We got a point!
Delighted with that point. Fantastic result.
Both teams had chances (Bradley hit the post and Mexico hit the cross bar), but could not finish. I've been very happy with Bruce Arena so far.
Zusi: Yay, I get to play for a minute and a half!
Honestly a point is the best we can hope for in Azteca. Good work all. 2nd half ws tense.
it's certainly not the best but it is a great result when the probability distribution is about 75 percent loss, 20 percent draw, 5 percent win at best. Hard to ask for a winning lottery ticket tonight but after that Bradley strike shifted those odds, my hopes were up!
to have a sport where a tie is considered an achievement.
I bet Nashville would love to be tied right now and going in to overtime. Instead they got a bigtime fuck job by the refs.
Typical NHL refs, but I'm not surprised. This is a league where they allowed an illegal goal (Brett Hull's skate clearly in the crease) to win the Cup.
How ESPN rolled out their points for this game.
http://www.espnfc.us/team/united-states/660/blog/post/3142103/michael-b…
Cameron was EASILY an 8, probably an 8.5. He absolutely saved this game.
How was Acosta a 7.5? He did nothing of note.
Pulisic, even though he did not score, was very creative. 7.5.
He almost saved us at the bitter end...
Was in the US end for basically the majority of the game. The defense had to stand on their head the entire game. I don't think you can attribute any of that to Acosta.
Acosta completely whiffed on the Mexican goal when the dude was making his initial run through the middle.
You know you're my favorite uncle, but I don't agree with Mexico being in our end the entire match. Even if they were they certainly didn't threaten that often. I think it was a pretty even match and the US definitely had a few chances to win. Also, Acosta is absolutely not to blame on the Mexico goal. He tried to block it and missed but it was not his fuck up. Beasley got burned and Guzan didn't move. I still don't understand why Guzan started.
We must have watched a totally different game. Mexico was in the USA's third after they scored, and basically the entire 2nd half.
No, it wasn't an onslaught of great chance after chance, but they pretty much picked where they wanted to go and the USA parked the bus in front of Guzan. Possession from last view was staggeringly in Mexico's favor. Smashed the post on a free kick, had a ton of crosses into the box. Cameron had to stand on his head over and over again.
I'm not blaming him on the goal, but he damn well could have slowed that break up. I just do not see how he gets a 7.5.
I'm with you on Guzan. Odd decision.
Mexico had a lot of possession but almost none of it was dangerous. Did they create a single chance within the 18? The US wasn't parking the bus, Guzan didn't have to stand on his head, in fact, the US probably had the better of the chances given that both Wood and Pulisic had clear chances that they probably at least put on frame at least 75% of the time.
The US was fine with letting Mexico have possession 40 yards out and trying to hit them quickly on the break once they tried to move forward from there. The way they set up is one of the main tactics that teams around the world adopted to counter tiki-taka possession heavy attacking strategies. It's essentially how Leicester won the EPL last year, it's how Italy smashed Spain in the 2016 Euros.
Agreed that Accosta should have just taken a YC professional foul on Chicarito to stop the break that led to the Mexican goal.
it was fairly even in the first half in terms of possession with both teams aggressively counter attacking a few times. Entertaining first half.
Then we went into complete defend-the-draw mode in the second, parking 8 guys in front of Guzan and being content to clear with almost no attempt to keep possession, so the match ended with Mex having 74 percent of possession time.
They had it the whole second half but mostly because we let them and we did a good job of making sure they didn't have many, if any real good chances in the second half. All those crosses into the box were met with a few US defenders, save for one or two.
Possession isn't meaningful unless you're doing something with it. Mexico did precious little with it because Acosta and Bradley were closing down alot of lanes in the middle. Acosta should've taken a yellow on the counter with the goal, but hindsight is 20/20. He played extremely well IMO, espeically considering he's 21 years old and it was his first experience in Azteca.
he was marking (trailing) the guy streaking through to the corner, Cameron seemed to not even see him or thought he was too far behind so he tried to play the passing lane instead of helping out Beasley (who was beaten badly). Blame was about equal on Beasley and Cameron but I don't see how it was on Acosta at all.
we tied.....
Can't see Bo saying that.
10-10 bitter,,, and I was there.
Different sport, different structure, different consequences. Draws matter in soccer and the context can make them good or bad. What matters, ultimately, is qualifying for the World Cup, and this is reasonable progress (and half of the hex makes it, so no vote for the one conference representative that even gets to be in a bowl).
Soccer and hockey are low-sample sports where the scarcity of scoring means that ties occur. It's not always preferred, but a fan of the sport can learn to appreciate them. And, in the case of soccer, it's wildly better than any cheap way of breaking such a tie.
Was every reason why soccer is one of my favorite sports and why I get irritated with people who say, "meh, 1-1 score, boring."
I was on pins and needles that whole game, Bradley's goal was better than ANYTHING you'll see in any sport, and the atmosphere was incredible. You get one or two games of massive consequence on the international stage every 4-5 months at most, instead of being hit over the head with 80+ games in NBA, NHL, and 160 in MLB.
Those fans who defend a 0-0 pitching duel in MLB and say it is exciting should undrestand why us soccer fans feel the way we do.
It was a GREAT match, despite the "boring" 1-1 score line.
I'm not sure why Mexico quit on the last corner though. They short-cornered it and then just piddled the ball until full time. It was going to be the last play of the match no matter what. No reason not to go all out for that.
Hey, this is your big rival at home. Woody Hayes would have gone for 2 goals there.
Strange. I thought the same thing myself.
Speaking of which, I do not know why Bruce Arena decided to have basically every corner kick be a short corner. I cannot stand them. You get everyone moving in the box, and the whole timing is thrown off. I don't think a single one of those short corners was ever a threat.
Launch the damn thing into the box, see what happens.
Agreed.
Short corners have always seemed like a move of desperation to me, like when Spain kept taking short corners against us in the Confed Cup because they just could not deal with our height.
I get using them once in a while as a change-up, but not as an overall strategy.
The USA has historically been known for our set pieces. We seem to be losing our proficiency there.
I agree that it can work as a change of pace. I don't really agree that it is a move of desperation. Your example actually makes my point. Why would Spain consistently try corners against a taller and more physical US squad? It would make sense for them to take short corners because they are so technically gifted that they can maintain possession to set up more chances. What is desperate is trying to attempt long corner to try to score when you are outmatched.
One of the main problem on US set pieces is that Bradley's not very good on dead balls and he's taken most of the non-shooting ones (with Dempsey taking the shots). He tends to hit balls that float and are easier for the defense to deal with. As Accosta moves into the lineup, hopefully he will become the main taker of corners and free kicks, because he's very good and precise on them.
must not have realized they were past extra time, but not sure how his team could fail to signal that.
I thought that was bizarre. It was a full-blown admission that we're done here, we're fine with this tie, to the extent that even a zero-risk rocket into the box isn't worth our time. As soon as they squibbed it back out, the ref decided if they didn't care, he didn't either and ended it, this being after he gave them every damn chance to score well past the end of stoppage time. I'm sure he'd have let them scramble around in the box for ages if Mexico simply put it there.
I would have understood if they were playing Panama or Honduras.
But this is the big bad 'ole USA, at Azteca. We were about to get a point in WC qualifying there for only the 3rd time in history.
No way you don't go all out for that with basically no time left on the clock.
If you won't do it to spite USA fans, at least do it to spite Donald Trump.
Show some proper hate, man.
My guess is some players weren't aware the game was almost over. Tired? Brain fart? I think their coach was trying to get them to hurry up, but maybe they couldn't hear him? It was hilarious.
Last night around the 85 minute mark I had to get up for a bit and leave the TV. I figured, OK, I'll find how it went when I get back. Then I realized, wait, no, I want to see this, and paused the Tivo. Nothing happened, of course, but it was still an interesting eight minutes of nothing.
Bradley's goal was better than ANYTHING you'll see in any sport,That might be overdoing it a bit, but yeah, it was cool.
To the way a goal/point is scored.
The majestic soccer goal trumps anything you'll see from basketball, baseball, football, or hockey.
Let's not get carried away.
It's true, the rare brilliant goal is magnificent. And, given the scarcity of goals, the excitement when it happens is spectacular.
But it's not like a couple of those other sports don't have majestic scoring plays themselves.
As you'll find.
But the absolute precision, touch, and class you have to score a goal like Bradley trumps that IMO.
I dunno, I don't see it in terms quite so flowery as that. I know it's the beautiful game and all (even when people are elbowing other players in the head and the ref is like "that's cool"). But Bradley basically just hauled off and whacked it with his foot as hard as he could, assisted by the timing of his stride and the location of the ball, and put a little curve on it on the way. What was the difference between the one he scored and the one he hit the post on? Was it missing precision, touch, class, or all of the above? And shouldn't the ability to drop a football into the receiver's arms in stride from 70 yards away involve just as much of the same flowery adjectives? Or hit a three-pointer a zillion times in a row? Or put a hockey puck into a puck-sized opening from 70 feet, the way Steve Yzerman did against the Blues?
I guess that's a long way to say I don't see why soccer is unique in this regard, except for the British habit of using interesting, somewhat non-sequiturish adjectives to describe the play, like "classy". Bradley probably misses that shot 19 times out of 20, to be frank. Certainly at least half the time, given the sample size of the game.
You said Bradley misses that shot 19 times out of 20, doesn't that counter a little bit of what you said in the first paragraph?
I find the perfect touch and flick of the toe to elevate that ball to JUST clear the goalie's arms and get into a miniscule space just better than anything you will see in the NFL.
I'm not sure which part. I thought it was pretty compatible with the contention that the goal was, in large part, the result of a fortuitous setup, i.e., sometimes the ball just bounces the right way and you succeed in hitting it the right way. It being not very repeatable means it's not all that controllable.
Besides, is it really all that different from this?
Completely different. It's a dude who is running in a straight line, using speed and jumping out to grab a ball. It is an amazing play, but that's more about him being a better athlete.
Bradley's shot and any other goal that makes the highlight reel has so many more moving parts. Location of goalie, exact angle on how to hit the ball, distance, timing, everything. That's just a guy running his ass off and sprawling out. Both great, but it's not soccer quality.
Was referring to Stafford throwing the ball, actually. Yes, it helps to have a guy running under it who can control part of the play, but still. Stafford's doing more than just rearing back and chucking it - he still has to throw it so that his receiver and only his receiver can catch up to it. And it doesn't rely, by the way, on the ball bouncing correctly.
Point being, Bradley's skill only takes him so far. On some level, it's just him whacking at the ball and hoping for the best. All he can do is give it a chance to go in - much like all Stafford can do is give Jones a chance to get it. I'd say if you want to apply the terms "precision, touch, and class," there's no way to avoid applying it to Stafford's throw, too. And honestly, if you asked me which play had less luck involved, I'd say the throw.
And it was the first thought that came in my head. Stafford might underthrow or overthrow a bit; the WR can make adjustments that will help make that play.
It is a one-man show in soccer when it comes to that perfect goal placement. He controls everything.
I guess it all boils down to what impresses the fan most, because we obviously have different ideas of that, which is fine. Take a goal like Zlatan's bicycle from nearly half field. No perfect pass, no amount of straight three pointers/dunks, or no outfield play in baseball will ever equal that in terms of skill.