OT World Cup Thread

If the play I saw today is indicative, Germany and Portugal will advance, without much competition. They both play a level above the US and Ghana.

VS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ValiantSailor

If the play I saw today is indicative, Germany and Portugal will advance, without much competition. They both play a level above the US and Ghana.

VS

---

I think Portugal horribly struggles with the pace of both the U.S. and Ghana, and may leave Brazil with zero points. The one knock on the current U.S. line-up is the lack of playmaking in the midfield, but against Portugal I think the U.S. can counter them to death and get many chances to convert that way. I do feel awful for Jozy though, as a horrible club year at a messed up club and now likely being done for the World Cup after 20 minutes. I expect Johannsson to be much better on Sunday, but still would prefer a healthy Jozy that had just rediscovered his mojo again.

USA plays Portugal in Manaus. The pitch is basically a sandbox with some grass painted on. It will play slow, and with no Pepe, no Coentrao, and maybe no Almeida, Portugal is beatable. They are probably the most overrated team in the world. Ronaldo is great, but the rest of them are average. A draw would likely see us through. I like our odds, especially since I felt more confident of beating Portugal than I did Ghana before the Cup started.

We can still get through to the next round even if we lose our next two games as long as Germany pounds Ghana, Ghana beats Portugal and the US loses both of their games by close margins.

Bottom line is we need to take care of business and at least get a draw against Portugal, which I think is very doable as Portugal is overrated. Losing Jozy hurts as he was very good at keeping possession and creating scoring chances.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8Kw.../preview?pli=1

BBC analysis of the US game.

I love watching these reactions on youtube:

Who are the aholes that refuse to stand?
http://youtu.be/D6qLg23Bx1A

http://youtu.be/2iLnvXB43uI

Marquette guy in this one.
http://youtu.be/sS172L6Cmv8

I can't see Portugal advancing. Too much goal differential for them to pick up. The US will play cautiously Sunday, playing not to lose. If they draw, that is easily good enough. Germany should beat or at least draw Ghana. That leads to a final game between the US and Germany, where neither has any incentive to take risks. Ninety minutes of playing keep away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclejohn

I can't see Portugal advancing. Too much goal differential for them to pick up. The US will play cautiously Sunday, playing not to lose. If they draw, that is easily good enough. Germany should beat or at least draw Ghana. That leads to a final game between the US and Germany, where neither has any incentive to take risks. Ninety minutes of playing keep away.

---

This.

I hope we don't play not to lose. If we do we will probably lose. Portugal is without two starting defenders. We need to take it to them, go for a smash-and-grab again. Get an early goal and watch them cave. Let Jermaine Jones physical the hell out of Ronaldo and grind him into the Manaus sand. Get them playing like a one-man team and they will be beat. Thankfully, every time Nani botches another effort it becomes that much easier to get them to the one-dimensional mentality that got them here. I think we can beat them and if we play aggressive, frankly, we should. They may have the edge in individual talent, but I have no doubt we are a better team.

Not at all surprised with Chile beating Spain and subsequently eliminating them from the World Cup. I did not think much of the chances for the European powers, particularly in a South American World Cup that featured a host of strong South American squads (plus a surging U.S. squad and other solid teams like Ivory Coast and Algeria). I picked Chile to win the group, but did take Spain second over the Dutch.

Along these lines, I would not be surprised if a solid, strongly disciplined Costa Rica side gets a result against Italy and even wins outright. A result there could set up three CONCACAF sides making it to the knockout round.

Costa Rica could also get something off England. If the Ticos get a lead, they are exceptional at grinding a result, and at this point two draws would guarantee they go through. The real question is of Uruguay is as bad as they looked.

Well on the plus side, England won't have another disappointing penalty kick loss in the knock out rounds.

If Italy blows out Costa Rica and then turns around and beats Uruguay (neither are out of the question,) England still has life.

BTW how about these stats:

Western Hemisphere (North, Central, South America): 10 wins, 2 draws, 3 losses

Everyone else: 9 wins, 4 draws, 16 losses

"Group of Death" lives up to its name. Unbelievable finish!

VS

Bradley blew it at the end there... So close... I came into the day saying that I'd be happy with a draw, but now post game I don't feel good about it at all, stuff like that always comes back to haunt you.

Let's hope that Ghana and Portugal tie or that Portugal can beat Ghana by 1...

Jurgen should bench Bradley. He's been terrible, and gave the ball away in a completely unacceptable fashion to lead to the equalizer. A horrible result, and one that will probably see them go out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MUfan12

Jurgen should bench Bradley. He's been terrible, and gave the ball away in a completely unacceptable fashion to lead to the equalizer. A horrible result, and one that will probably see them go out.

---

Why will they go out?

If US wins or draws they advance.
If Ghana / Portugal tie, US advances.
If US loses by 1, Ghana would have to win by 2 to advance.
If US loses by 1, Portugal would have to win by 4 to advance.

Right now, oddsmakers give Germany a 1/100 shot at advancing...US 1/5...Ghana 6/1...Portugal 8/1. That's about right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MUfan12

Jurgen should bench Bradley. He's been terrible, and gave the ball away in a completely unacceptable fashion to lead to the equalizer. A horrible result, and one that will probably see them go out.

---

Bradley's giveaway was unacceptable for a player of his caliber. I realize he was gassed, but if you can't get possession of it, just blast it into the corner at that point - he knows that and we never shouldve been in that position. Also the defenders really shouldve done a better job of not allowing the one guy in the box to get behind them.

Regarding benching him, he hasnt been very good for two games now - that i will agree with but he's arguably our best player so that's just ridiculous to bench him.

I would assume those are odds of not advancing... Germany has way better than a 1/100 odd of advancing at this point. The US is definitely in a better spot than Portugal and Ghana... That said Germany will be the toughest team they will play thus far. It's a bit ironic that they played much better today than they did in their first game given the results... The US should have had another goal or two today. Thursday could be real interesting.

I expect Germany and the US to kick the ball around for ninety minutes without trying to do much. The US can afford a loss by one goal as long as Ghana does not win by two. The only problem I see is that in order for Portugal to advance, they have to score in bunches, which means they have to throw caution to the winds. That might lead to a free-wheeling affair in which Ghana wins by more than one.

On the one hand, settling for a tie when they had the game won is a huge letdown. On the other, I think Klinsman will use it to keep them sharp going into their last game. They got past Ghana despite a bunch of mistakes. They should have won today if not for two major mistakes. They can keep improving, which might be a good mindset to be in going into the knockout stage.

Curiously, of the eight groups, only two have all four teams still in the running. Up until yesterday, the pattern had been that one team moved on and one was eliminated every day. Of course, some of those undecided teams are looking pretty comfortable, like Brazil and Nigeria. Others are hanging on by their fingernails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyCityGoldenEagle

Regarding benching him, he hasnt been very good for two games now - that i will agree with but he's arguably our best player so that's just ridiculous to bench him.

---

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. This tournament is finite. You're only as good as your last game. And he's been a liability.

As far as going out, I'm more worried about the margin the US will lose by. This will be difficult to recover from.

Ok let's hear your solution? So you bench him...Who are you putting in his spot?

It's the hardest position on the field and if you've watched more than two games you know he is by far our best option regardless of two poor games.

He was much better today, yes the play at the end was bad, but overall today was much better.

Bradley was undeniably bad against Ghana, but I thought he had a lot of good moments today. He was consistently good on the attack, and did win his share of balls in the midfield. He also had a few ugly turnovers, with the last one being the most costly. As big of a Mix Diskerud fan as I am, you cannot replace Bradley for him. All the other possible options significantly lack Bradley's quality (and I do not even want to here fat Landon as a second guess option). Knowing Bradley's pride and conditioning, I expect a strong performance Thursday against a vulnerable German midfield and back line.

For as bad as Bradley has been, Jermaine Jones looks about as good as I remember. That goal he scored today was incredible, and he has no trouble being physical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyCityGoldenEagle

Ok let's hear your solution? So you bench him...Who are you putting in his spot?

It's the hardest position on the field and if you've watched more than two games you know he is by far our best option regardless of two poor games.

---

Thanks for the condescension. I'm willing to bet I watch more football than most here.

Getting back to Bradley, I think it's a question that needs to be asked. The margin at this tournament is so small that you can't just give him a pass on past performance. One mistake can mean the end of the tournament.

Who would I play? The play of Jones and Beckerman gives you a little more flexibility, as neither will shirk on their defensive responsibilities. I'd give Mix a look. Or play another forward with Dempsey, depending on what JK wants from the Germany game.

It's not an easy call, but at the very least worthy of discussion.

I am not as familiar with the personnel as some of you, but aside from that glaring, stupid turnover at the end, Bradley played pretty well. He more than held his own. You have to put the players on the field who give you the best chance to win. I would be surprised if that is someone other than Bradley.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MUfan12

Thanks for the condescension. I'm willing to bet I watch more football than most here.

Getting back to Bradley, I think it's a question that needs to be asked. The margin at this tournament is so small that you can't just give him a pass on past performance. One mistake can mean the end of the tournament.

Who would I play? The play of Jones and Beckerman gives you a little more flexibility, as neither will shirk on their defensive responsibilities. I'd give Mix a look. Or play another forward with Dempsey, depending on what JK wants from the Germany game.

It's not an easy call, but at the very least worthy of discussion.

---

My apologies if that came off as condescending-wasn't my intent. I've heard many people say bench Bradley--but those people have only watched him play these first two games and I was simply implying that if you've watched more than the WC you know how good Bradley is and how important he is to our team.

While I get your point about a finite tournament and win now, I am still strongly of the mindset that benching Bradley would be ridiculous. Finite or not, just think about other sports - you don't bench your best player (imo he's our best but it's prob between him, demp and Howard) just bc he's had two rough games. We need him and klinsman knows this which is why the thought of benching him hasn't even crossed his mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MKE_GoldenEagleFan

I would assume those are odds of not advancing... Germany has way better than a 1/100 odd of advancing at this point.

---

Obviously you are not a gambling man. 1/100 odds do not mean Germany has a 1-in-100 chance to advance. It means quite the opposite. To win $1 on Germany advancing at this point a bettor needs to wager $100. Portugal at 8-1 odds means a $100 bet would win $800 if they advance. I hope this gambling tutorial has been enlightening.:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarriorNich

Obviously you are not a gambling man. 1/100 odds do not mean Germany has a 1-in-100 chance to advance. It means quite the opposite. To win $1 on Germany advancing at this point a bettor needs to wager $100. Portugal at 8-1 odds means a $100 bet would win $800 if they advance. I hope this gambling tutorial has been enlightening.:cool:

---

Haha no I'm not, that was definitely educating... I appreciate it.

"I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL LOSE, BUT STILL ADVANCE DUE TO GOAL DIFFERENTIAL!"

Kind of catchy, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unclejohn

"I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL LOSE, BUT STILL ADVANCE DUE TO GOAL DIFFERENTIAL!"

Kind of catchy, don't you think?

---

LOL...whatever works!!!

I think they can beat Belgium. (Keep in mind I know nothing about them!!)

Job well done. Deserved the three points against Portugal, a bit fortunate to get all three against Ghana, and a respectable performance all things considered today against Germany. I think the U.S. would have been more dangerous today if their legs were not shot from quick turnaround from the jungle, and expect the attack to be more potent against the Belgians.

Edit: To answer Sultan's point, Belgium is super talented but have not meshed well together. They whooped us in a friendly last year, but I think the U.S. has been every bit their equal in Brazil.

Nate Silver chimes in on the USA's chances in the knockout round: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/t...-cup-opponent/

Belgium on paper would be one of the favorites in this tournament, and will almost certainly be a top team in 2018. Tons of talent, but also very young and inexperienced. None of them have ever played in a World Cup knockout before, and prior to 2 weeks ago they had zero World Cup experience. You can't underestimate the raw talent of guys like Hazard, Origi, Mertens, De Bruyne, and Courtois, but this will be a new environment for them.

They are certainly beatable, but to do it I think we have to go at them like we did against Portugal. If we play on the back foot like we did against Germany, the speed and technique of Belgium will destroy us. We need to push them back and show we can attack. I would really like to see Mix Diskerud get into this game. He's our best player when it comes to making one or two touches and getting the ball to the next guy. I've been underwhelmed with both Zusi and Bedoya thus far and think Mix would be a welcome change.

Two of their top defenders (Kompany and Vermaelen) are struggling with injuries, so if Jozy can come back, now would certainly be the time. If not, I think they should keep with the false 9 sort of mentality that has seen Jones, Bradley, and Dempsey all alternating up front.

Of the 10 teams from the western hemisphere, 8 made it to the knock out round. Ecuador and Honduras were the only exceptions.

OTOH, Asian teams went 0-3-9 in group play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSultan

Of the 10 teams from the western hemisphere, 8 made it to the knock out round. Ecuador and Honduras were the only exceptions.

OTOH, Asian teams went 0-3-9 in group play.

---

And FIFA was talking about taking the CONCACAF half-spot (we currently get 3 auto-bids and one play-in with Oceania) and giving it to Asia. Please. This has been a great showing for CONCACAF and CONMEBOL. Honestly, I think it's possible that you could see 6/8 teams in the quarterfinals from the Americas. Costa Rica will probably be favored against Greece and both USA and Mexico could beat their European opposition, while 2 South American teams are guaranteed (from Brazil/Chile and Colombia/Uruguay) while Argentina looks like a strong bet to join them.

Okay...long post alert...

We need to make some alterations to compete with Belgium. Two of the biggest problems this team has had are set piece delivery and the curious case of Michael Bradley. I hoped to see Davis take set pieces in the last match, but Klinsmann seems set with Zusi when he's in there and Bedoya when he isn't. Zusi's delivery has been very poor since the perfectly placed cross to Brooks for the Ghana winner. At this point, I'd rather see Dempsey, Bradley, or someone else (Mix?) take a crack.

The other problem seems to largely be created because Bradley has had to run so damn much (more than any other player this World Cup) due to the Altidore injury. Bradley's regular defensive duties have been compounded with a need to play the underneath role usually frequented by Dempsey. The Portugal game really stood out for me. Bradley was a beast in the first half, winning balls, attacking, and had the game ended there you could have argued he was our best player. In the second half, he got winded and simply couldn't connect up, all punctuated by the awful giveaway that led to Ronaldo's delivery for the winner.

My real issue with us though is how similar our attackers are. Whether it's Beasley and Johnson making long runs from the back, Bradley or Jones making surging box-to-box runs through the midfield, or Zusi and Bedoya charging up the wings, it seems everyone needs the ball at their feet to be most effective. There's only one ball, and you can't have 7 players (including Dempsey, best on the team with the ball at his feet) that all need the ball on their feet to be effective. Which is why I feel it's the time for Mix Diskerud.

If I'm Klinsmann, I'd consider something like this:

Dempsey

Diskerud ----- Johnson

Jones ----- Beckerman ----- Bradley

Beasley ----- Besler ----- Cameron ----- Yedlin

Howard

It's not that different from what we've been playing. Jones and Beasley have formed an able pair on the left, covering each other defensively and getting the ball up the pitch. Having Yedlin and Johnson together would keep one RB back at all times and provide a more defensive (but also faster) look than Zusi in there. That also allows Bradley to be a defensive safety valve both for the right side and Hazard as well as Beckerman dealing with De Bruyne in the middle. The real differences are Johnson taking Zusi's role primarily, Jones returning to the role he played against Ghana, but adding a quick-touch facilitator in Diskerud. One of the problems we've had this competition is interlinking in the final third. Diskerud is the only player on our team who generally already knows what he will do with the ball before he gets it. One or two touches and it's on to the next player. He won't try to get fancy, dribble around, and give the defense time to take the ball.

The only player on the roster that can hold up the ball allowing the midfielders to run on to him is Altidore. Without him in there, a change is needed. Diskerud will allow the USA to hold possession by transitioning quickly from right to left and back to front. When we've tried to hold the ball without Altidore, we've seen too many giveaways in the final third. Diskerud's mindset reduces the odds of that happening. He's not the defensive presence that Zusi or Bedoya are, but with Jones and Bradley flanking Beckerman and Johnson covering the young Yedlin there's enough presence at the back. Frankly, no amount of defense will ever really be "enough" for a team with the wealth of attacking options Belgium has, and the best way to reduce pressure is to actually apply some of our own in the final third. If Jozy isn't ready for 90 minutes, Diskerud is the only player on the roster that addresses that.

While this does take out our free kick takers, I'm willing to risk that. For direct kicks, Dempsey will take them anyway, and for crosses, we can't do much worse than we have (excepting Zusi's corner to Brooks).

Belgium has barely scraped by this World Cup despite winning all three. They came from behind against Algeria and all of their winners have been scored after the 75th minute. Using Diskerud will help the USA maintain possession (which worked well for Russia and South Korea for much of the game) and keep options like Zusi and Bedoya available off the bench to inject some late pace when in the past Belgium has been able to surge past teams with three of four goals coming from substitutes.

Relieve defensive pressure by maintaining meaningful possession, partner Dempsey with other attack-minded players that excel with minimal touches, and have energy off the bench to counteract Belgium's late strength and I fully believe the USA can win. But if we just do what wasn't quite enough to get desired results against Portugal and Germany, I fear the USA will be bowing out in the Round of 16 in back-to-back World Cups.

I have been an advocate for soccer for more than two decades, ever since my son joined the Bavarians at age nine. Both my son and my daughter played premier level club soccer and school soccer. My daughter played two years of D-3 college soccer before transferring to UW, and my son was recruited by several schools and was told he could play mid-major D-1 (though he gave up soccer after high school).

I coached soccer for 10 years at the school where I taught, and each year I came to appreciate the game more and more as I began to understand some of the game's nuances.

However, after watching about a half dozen World Cup games, my attitude about the sport - at least as it is played at the highest level - is changing. I will still watch the game Tuesday against Belgium, of course, but I am growing incredibly weary of watching players end up on the ground - often writhing in apparent agony - at least once every two or three minutes, and sometimes three or four times in a single minute.

If I had the patience, I would chart how many times a player ends up on the ground following contact with an opponent. My guess is the count would be somewhere around 50, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were much higher. Yes, the players are incredibly skilled, and they are extremely athletic. But I find the style of play almost unbearable to watch.

I enjoyed watching the U-17 Bavarians play the U-17 Brookfield Soccer Club team in 2000 much more than I've enjoyed watching the best soccer players in the world knock each other to the turf.