• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

American Soccer |OT| Life, liberty and the pursuit of the beautiful game

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aging up the 2014 roster for 2018:

Code:
Age in 2018
23	Green
24	Yedlin
25	Brooks
26
27	Diskerud, Johannsson
28	Altidore, Chandler
29	Gonzalez
30	Johnson, Bradley
31	Besler, Bedoya, Zusi
32	Cameron
33	Guzan
34
35	Dempsey, Wondo
36	Beasley, Jones, Beckerman, Davis
37
38	Rimando
39	Howard
Also, the cut players FWIW: Parkhurst 34, Goodson 36, Donovan 36, Evans 33, Edu 32, Corona 27



In other news, it turns out that Brek Shea has been playing on a torn MCL since last Summer according to this article. Sounds like Stoke are likely to loan him out again this Fall.
 

valeo

Member
NoRéN;119182493 said:
My thoughts exactly.

I know people will want to skip the Landon talk but, fuck that. Had the US won this game and kept going you know there would be so much talk about how Donovan wasn't needed, etc.

The fact of the matter is, Wondolowski made the roster over Donovan. Wondolowski could have killed this match in the 2nd of 3 minutes of stoppage time. The celebrations alone would have pretty much ended the match. Is Wondolowski the one to blame for losing the match? Absolutely not. But, he could have won it.

Where does it end though? If you got to the final and didn't win that, would you still blame it on not having a player that isn't even in your squad?

When France gets bundled out do you think they will blame it on Nasri not being there?
 

jtb

Banned
watching any USA game with American commentators is always awful. can't stand their patronizing, jingoistic, hyperbolic garbage—and you're likely going to get it from whoever's commentating because that's what we "want" I guess. though I suppose there are varying levels of incompetence and, despite as grating and awful Lalas and Twellman are, you can always do worse.

(am I allowed to whisper that I don't like Ian Darke? he always struck me as the very poor man's Ray Hudson, with the same ridiculously nonsensical turns of phrase but none of the campy charm)
 
Aging up the 2014 roster for 2018:

Code:
Age in 2018
23	Green
24	Yedlin
25	Brooks
26
27	Diskerud, Johannsson
28	Altidore, Chandler
29	Gonzalez
30	Johnson, Bradley
31	Besler, Bedoya, Zusi
32	Cameron
33	Guzan
34
35	Dempsey, Wondo
36	Beasley, Jones, Beckerman, Davis
37
38	Rimando
39	Howard
Also, the cut players FWIW: Parkhurst 34, Goodson 36, Donovan 36, Evans 33, Edu 32, Corona 27



In other news, it turns out that Brek Shea has been playing on a torn MCL since last Summer according to this article. Sounds like Stoke are likely to loan him out again this Fall.

Dempsey and Jones on the cusp of next WC depending on what their form will be then. Everyone younger should be good to go. Excited for the future.
 

xbhaskarx

Member
Dempsey and Jones on the cusp of next WC depending on what their form will be then.

I remember this time in 2010 when people were including Bocanegra and Cherundolo on their 2014 rosters....
Dempsey will be 35 and Jones will be 36. We're not talking about Pirlo here... that was the last you'll see of either guy at the World Cup unless they get a sex change in the next year.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Dempsey and Jones on the cusp of next WC depending on what their form will be then. Everyone younger should be good to go. Excited for the future.

I don't think anyone older than Guzan makes the squad in four years. We've got enough depth at this point to where we won't need them four years from now. If we have to bring Dempsey we'll be in trouble.

In addition to the guys already listed we've also got guys like Harry Shipp and hopefully Gedion Zelalem. It'll be interesting to see where we are in four years.
 
watching any USA game with American commentators is always awful. can't stand their patronizing, jingoistic, hyperbolic garbage—and you're likely going to get it from whoever's commentating because that's what we "want" I guess. though I suppose there are varying levels of incompetence and, despite as grating and awful Lalas and Twellman are, you can always do worse.

(am I allowed to whisper that I don't like Ian Darke? he always struck me as the very poor man's Ray Hudson, with the same ridiculously nonsensical turns of phrase but none of the campy charm)

I don't know why people don't like Lalas and/or Twellman. I think they do a good job. Also, taking Ian Darke's name in vain? For shame.

----------------------

Rooney tweeted earlier in the day that he was a US fan today. We can blame it on that.
 

Alur

Member
Wasn't there also a rumor that Toronto was looking at him? I could only imagine how they'd dominate with that line up.

Don't they already have all their DP slots filled (Gilberto, Bradley, Defoe)? All I saw in reference to them and Jermaine Jones was that they are at the top of the allocation order, so SKC has to make a deal with them in order to get that slot.

watching any USA game with American commentators is always awful. can't stand their patronizing, jingoistic, hyperbolic garbage—and you're likely going to get it from whoever's commentating because that's what we "want" I guess. though I suppose there are varying levels of incompetence and, despite as grating and awful Lalas and Twellman are, you can always do worse.

(am I allowed to whisper that I don't like Ian Darke? he always struck me as the very poor man's Ray Hudson, with the same ridiculously nonsensical turns of phrase but none of the campy charm)

I enjoy Ian Darke myself, though some of the patronizing is a little grating. The thing is that stuff isn't meant for people like us who will watch regardless. It's meant for those NFL and NBA fans who tune in once every four years to see 'Murica beat foreigners.

That does lead me to my other query, though...is it already time to turn on Jurgen Klinsmann?

I've already heard Lalas say this is no better than four years ago, and there are two or three articles on the MLS site about how it's same as before, so why should he persist when Bradley didn't, etc...

I honestly don't get it, though. We played stiffer competition here than either time we went through before. We hung tight in every game. It wasn't pretty, but basically every move Klinsmann made came up roses. His tactical changes and substitutions were great. Hell, even putting on Wondolowski tonight was a stroke of genius...he just didn't finish it.

Yeah, we didn't possess the ball but that's not so much a Klinsmann issue as it is a personnel issue. We just aren't there yet. For me, I love what he's done and I want to see what he can do with four more years to grow. Am I the only one who feels this way?
 

jtb

Banned
no way can you fire Klinsmann after this world cup cycle. he did better than Bradley by every metric. got through a far more difficult WC group? check. didn't embarrass ourselves in the gold cup? check. didn't tactically shit the bed in the first knockout game? check.

after all the talk about Klinsmann really being a puppet to Low's tactical genius and the fear that he'd get us playing suicidal attacking football, Klinsmann has actually met all expectations and gotten the USA playing as a solid, scrappy team.

I see it the Klinsmann "debate" the same way I look at the criticism over Bradley's performances this world cup. he was never as good some of the hype (remember hearing talk in media that he could make any world cup squad with ease, which was lol worthy), so of course, he's the first target when he doesn't live up to those unrealistic expectations. he played at his level all tournament long; he's not Pirlo or Zidane. he's an average international player capable of playing above that level when on form and in a well-defined role alongside other capable teammates playing in their well-defined roles. but ESPN needs this artificial debate, it's the only reason they exist.

if you fire a manager, you do so to get an upgrade. what upgrades are really available for US Soccer?
 

xbhaskarx

Member
We played better competition but 3 of 4 games were not exactly attractive proactive soccer in terms of style of play, scoring chances created, possession, not having to defend like mad for most of the game... not sure why Klinsmann reverted to the more conservative midfield like in his initial (unimpressive) 18 months in charge. I guess he made some questionable roster moves and then didn't really trust the guys he had at his disposal (Davis was predictably shit, Green unused until desperation time, and Diskerud the creative midfielder not even used).

Having said that success for us is defined as getting out of the group and we did that. There's no reason to fire the guy. Klinsmann is a motivational speaker not a master tactician, he should get back to what he does best and go recruit Gideon Zelalem, Shawn Parker, and others...
 

methodman

Banned
We played better competition but 3 of 4 games were not exactly attractive proactive soccer in terms of style of play, scoring chances created, possession, not having to defend like mad for most of the game... not sure why Klinsmann reverted to the more conservative midfield like in his initial (unimpressive) 18 months in charge. I guess he made some questionable roster moves and then didn't really trust the guys he had at his disposal (Davis was predictably shit, Green unused until desperation time, and Diskerud the creative midfielder not even used).

Having said that success for us is defined as getting out of the group and we did that. There's no reason to fire the guy. Klinsmann is a motivational speaker not a master tactician, he should get back to what he does best and go recruit Gideon Zelalem, Shawn Parker, and others...

I agree. Just will never forgive him for leaving Donovan off the roster when wondo, zusi, Davis, and bedoya all played mediocre to awful imo. Donovan wins that game for us against Belgium if he came in as a sub. Wondo didn't and that's on klinsmann
 

Nesotenso

Member
if you fire a manager, you do so to get an upgrade. what upgrades are really available for US Soccer?

none actually. I think Klinsmann's post game comments tell you a lot about he felt the team played. It wasn't what he wanted to do. I think we are moving in the right direction. I think making the technical director is the first step. I think he has better players at his disposal than Bradley for a whole host of reasons. But he has done a great job of recruiting dual nationals. I also feel he has the right instincts when it comes to putting trust in certain players and making subs in games. The best thing I like about JK being involved with US soccer is his drive and passion to change the entire landscape of the sport here and how we develop our youth. It is great to see him work closely with the YNT coaches and develop a consistent approach through the youth ranks all the way up to the senior team.

I think it is a very good bet that he will be closely monitoring the players in the upcoming youth national team tournaments.
 

Nesotenso

Member
I agree. Just will never forgive him for leaving Donovan off the roster when wondo, zusi, Davis, and bedoya all played mediocre to awful imo. Donovan wins that game for us against Belgium if he came in as a sub. Wondo didn't and that's on klinsmann

and if Donovan was sitting on the bench that would be another stupid story line we would be dealing for the entire duration of the tournament.
 

methodman

Banned
and if Donovan was sitting on the bench that would be another stupid story line we would be dealing for the entire duration of the tournament.
I'm sorry but wondo completely choked. If you disagree that's fine. Julian green nails an absolutely beautiful one timer on his first touch in a while cup game as an 18 year old. Wondo was brought on the team over Donovan for this fucking moment by our coach and he choked. That's on the coach.
 

DominoKid

Member
Klinsmann isnt going anywhere unless for some odd reason he decides he wants to leave. He's done a great job so far and I'm looking forward to the next 4 years.
 
I thought bedoya was quite good during the tournament. Besler, Beasley, Gonzo, Fabian, Yedlin, Jones, Beckerman were all ace.

The people that disappointed me the most were Bradley and Dempsey. Bradley just because I was hoping he would do better with his attacking chances. Dempsey never seemed to be able to take over Altidore's hold-up play. Hard to really fault him for it, but he was a large reason why we were held to defending for the tournament. Maybe Altidore would have done no better, maybe he would have..
 
DeAndre Yedlin and Julian Green were both great. We got some great youth talent.

who is the arsenal player Jurgen is trying to recruit? Hopefully we can grab him. I'm really positive about 2018 and 2022. We'll have great teams
 

methodman

Banned
wondo-misses-point-blank.gif
 

xbhaskarx

Member
The people that disappointed me the most were Bradley and Dempsey.

Two guys who Klinsmann basically played out of position.
Is it Bradley's fault the coach decided a couple months ago in a friendly vs Mexico that he's the attacking midfielder?
Is is Dempsey's fault he was used as a lone forward because the coach had no backup on the roster at that position?
 

xbhaskarx

Member
To all the people making excuses regarding the opposition being really good or our players not good enough (this is easily the most talented and deep player pool we've ever had), what about the stats showing we had worse possession in the group stage than any other team? Are we overmatched minnows like Honduras or Iran, because I thought the US got out of their group in 4 of the last 6 World Cups...

The latest: Belgium had 39 shots in the game. OptaJoe: "Only #GER, East Germany & #ENG have recorded more shots in a WC game than #BEL did tonight (1966-2014)."

Not in the knockout rounds, in the entire tournament. Do you know how many lousy teams have played in the World Cup since 1966? All but three didn't give up as many shots as we did today...
 

jtb

Banned
To all the people making excuses regarding the opposition being really good or our players not good enough (this is easily the most talented and deep player pool we've ever had), what about the stats showing we had worse possession in the group stage than any other team? Are we overmatched minnows like Honduras or Iran, because I thought the US got out of their group in 4 of the last 6 World Cups...

The latest: Belgium had 39 shots in the game. OptaJoe: "Only #GER, East Germany & #ENG have recorded more shots in a WC game than #BEL did tonight (1966-2014)."

Not in the knockout rounds, in the entire tournament. Do you know how many lousy teams have played in the World Cup since 1966? All but three didn't give up as many shots as we did today...

the players showed too much respect to Belgium, but you're overselling the US talent pool and underselling Belgium's talent pool. on paper, this is one of the top three or four squads on sheer talent alone. arguably the best squad still left in the tournament. there's no shame in taking a defensive, caution-first approach in the tournament. we're not overmatched minnows, but we're certainly not contenders—we have a very defined ceiling.

for me, the more worrying thing is that the players didn't seem to actually successfully carry out that tactical plan—no organization, no defensive solidity. whether that's a player thing or a coach thing, I don't know. could we have won this game? of course. but it would have required every US player playing the best game of their lives and hoping that Belgium don't play to their potential (which, admittedly, I don't think they did) and that's always going to be difficult.

maybe the missed opportunity is not topping the group rather than the Belgium game... I could get on board with that train of thought. Germany don't look their best, tossed away two points against Portugal, etc. I dunno. hard for me to be too upset about our performance at this tournament though.
 

alstein

Member
I think we've got a ways to go before being world class, but I think we're a respectable side at least.

Bradley had a good game today. Jones didn't show up today, but he had the broken nose so I'm going to assume it impacted his performance.

What I think the US needs is more depth overall- injuries really took their toll, and let's hope Howard can still play at this level in four more years.
 

jtb

Banned
Howard played his last WC match without question. but we have a nice production line of quality keepers. Guzan is class, he'll be a great number one for the USA for tournaments to come.
 

Alur

Member
The latest: Belgium had 39 shots in the game. OptaJoe: "Only #GER, East Germany & #ENG have recorded more shots in a WC game than #BEL did tonight (1966-2014)."

Not in the knockout rounds, in the entire tournament. Do you know how many lousy teams have played in the World Cup since 1966? All but three didn't give up as many shots as we did today...

That doesn't mean jack all, IMO. The number is a huge outlier. Brady Anderson hit 50 homers once, too. That's not the norm. He never came close before or after. Anything could happen in any match. That's just how it panned out. We're not talking about something like Corsi here that's gathered over a large period of time in a season in the NHL or something leading to a specific narrative about a player or team, we're talking about one match where the variables are many.

I don't see it as damning of anything in particular. It was simply USA playing Belgium too soft until the 18, them being particularly poor at finishing and Tim Howard having an out of body experience for one night. And it damn near worked, which is the craziest thing of all. Belgium would've collectively imploded if they took that many shots and lost. Our defense would've been compared to the 85 Bears on Sportscenter.

Crazy shit like that happens a couple times a year in the NHL, why would it not in the World Cup or soccer in general? In essence, the goal in both games is the same and sometimes a team is clearly outclassed or outmanned. I'm sure if you go looking through EPL or MLS games you'll see a couple each year with majorly inflated shot totals. Maybe not 39 shots, but I'm sure a few of the Chelsea/City/United vs the QPR's and Wigan's of the league end up in the same manner. It's not okay, no, but sometimes it happens.

Do you not think you would you have judged it differently if they had netted 1 in the 20th minute and a 2nd in the 55th and just sat on their heels for the rest of the game, stopping at around 9-12 shots like a typical match? Do you not think that is probably why no one else has those high totals of shots against? Would you have been more or less angry since we lost by the same score but didn't give up an extra 30 shots?

And yes, this was "easily the most talented and deep player pool we've ever had" but Belgium had ROMELU FREAKING LUKAKU on the damn bench until extra time. We don't even have ONE player in his prime of Lukaku's quality, let alone one to sit on the bench. Scant few of our players could match up 1v1 on any of these dudes, and in several of the outfield positions they had players that were several magnitudes better than their USA counterpart. Railing against the team for doing what it had to do versus attempting to run and gun a team that was clearly better in nearly every way at running and gunning seems...well, seems like just finding a reason to complain in order to complain from my perspective.
 

xbhaskarx

Member
Why isn't the one quality performance vs Portugal the outlier when we were on our heels for the three other games?

Also, Belgium are a very very good team, but the US has played plenty of good teams in previous World Cups, Brazil, Germany, Italy, etc.

And plenty of teams far worse than us have played plenty of teams far better than Belgium. For example Germany 8 Saudi Arabia 0 in 2002...
 

jtb

Banned
Why isn't the one quality performance vs Portugal the outlier when we were on our heels for the three other games?

it's a results business. we got results in two matches, and didn't in the other two. I think most would agree Ghana was worst team we played, then Portugal, then a toss up between Germany and Belgium. we're better than Ghana, we're equal to a crippled Portugal, and inferior to Germany and Belgium. we played to our ability. who gives a shit about possession and shots?

do we get out of the group if Ronaldo is fit and Pepe doesn't get sent off in that first game? almost certainly not. but Ronaldo isn't fit and Pepe did get sent off so we went through. so what does that mean? nothing
 

Alur

Member
Why isn't the one quality performance vs Portugal the outlier when we were on our heels for the three other games?

It, plus the last 10 versus Ghana, the last 8 versus Germany, and the last 15-20 versus Belgium are indeed the outliers. I didn't know anyone said any different. We didn't give up anywhere near 39 shots in any of those other games either, though.

What do all of those moments have in common? The other team went ahead or tied up and backed off and THEN we were on the attack. We never really took it to anyone when we had the lead or were knotted 0-0.

Which goes to my point from the last post...we just aren't there yet on a talent standpoint. It's not a coaching thing. It's just a level thing, and right now we are a B on a good day and B- or less on a typical day, and at least two of the four teams we played are A level and in each of the four games the other team had the majority of the better players on the pitch.

EDIT: And I don't think we are better than Ghana. Maybe if you average it out, but their best is much better than our best.
 

jtb

Banned
Also, Belgium are a very very good team, but the US has played plenty of good teams in previous World Cups, Brazil, Germany, Italy, etc.

And plenty of teams far worse than us have played plenty of teams far better than Belgium. For example Germany 8 Saudi Arabia 0 in 2002...

the game isn't about who has the most shots or shots on goal or possession, it's about scoring goals. come on, you know this. 2-1 is a respectable scoreline. Chelsea won the CL final with a single shot on target. I don't understand the pessimism about something so irrelevant.

I have no idea how many shots Greece conceded en route to winning Euro 2004 but I'm sure it was a lot. that doesn't mean that they were wrong to play that way, but it also doesn't mean that playing that way is easy.
 

Nesotenso

Member
I think everyone, including Jurgen, will agree to it that the way we played doesn't even come close to the way he set out his agenda to be. That is to dictate the game to the opposition. I think Jurgen is still committed to reach that level.
 

kingkitty

Member
I'm in upstate NY and I thought about supporting MLS. But idk what to choose between the Red Bulls or the upcoming New York City FC.

Maybe I'll just wait for a Syracuse FC lol lol
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I think everyone, including Jurgen, will agree to it that the way we played doesn't even come close to the way he set out his agenda to be. That is to dictate the game to the opposition. I think Jurgen is still committed to reach that level.

I think we saw some of that in the Portugal game and also in the Ghana game, until Jozy went down. We definitely need to figure out how to do that against stronger teams though.

I'm in upstate NY and I thought about supporting MLS. But idk what to choose between the Red Bulls or the upcoming New York City FC.

Maybe I'll just wait for a Syracuse FC lol lol

How far upstate, if you're close enough to New England you may as well support them.
 

xbhaskarx

Member
it's a results business.

I already said Klinsmann like Bradley before him should continue as coach based on meeting the threshold in terms of results (getting out of the group stage). That's almost certainly going to happen, we don't need to discuss it.

Having said that, this is pretty much my favorite quote when it comes to sports-related analysis:
"It's looking at process rather than outcomes. Too many people make decisions based on outcomes rather than process."
Paul DePodesta (former Oakland A's assistant GM in Moneyball)

we're better than Ghana, we're equal to a crippled Portugal, and inferior to Germany and Belgium.

We can agree that we beat Ghana. Were we "better" than Ghana? What does that mean? It looked to me like they dominated that game, and then they went out and outplayed Germany in their next game (which finished in a tie, so I guess you would say Ghana was "equal" to Germany as you said we were equal to Portugal, I on the other hand am saying we outplayed Portugal and were better than them, even though it ended in a tie...).

who gives a shit about possession and shots?

So there's no point to analysis beyond wins and losses? You could be a pundit on ESPN with that attitude. I'll quote DePodesta's blog in response:

On one particular hand the player was dealt 17 with his first two cards. The dealer was set to deal the next set of cards and passed right over the player until he stopped her, saying: "Dealer, I want a hit!" She paused, almost feeling sorry for him, and said, "Sir, are you sure?" He said yes, and the dealer dealt the card. Sure enough, it was a four.

The place went crazy, high fives all around, everybody hootin' and hollerin', and you know what the dealer said? The dealer looked at the player, and with total sincerity, said: "Nice hit."

I thought, "Nice hit? Maybe it was a nice hit for the casino, but it was a terrible hit for the player! The decision isn't justified just because it worked."

...

The fact of the matter is that all casino games have a winning process - the odds are stacked in the favor of the house. That doesn't mean they win every single hand or every roll of the dice, but they do win more often than not. Don't misunderstand me - the casino is absolutely concerned about outcomes. However, their approach to securing a good outcome is a laser like focus on process...

...

We can view baseball through the same lens. Baseball is certainly an outcome-driven business, as we get charged with a W or an L 162 times a year. Furthermore, we know we cannot possibly win every single time. In fact, winning just 60% of the time is a great season, a percentage that far exceeds house odds in most games. Like a casino, it appears as though baseball is all about outcomes, but just think about all of the processes that are in play during the course of just one game or even just one at-bat.

In having this discussion years ago with Michael Mauboussin, who wrote "More Than You Know", he showed me a very simple matrix by Russo and Schoemaker in "Winning Decisions" that explains this concept:
process.bmp


We all want to be in the upper left box - deserved success resulting from a good process. This is generally where the casino lives... The box in the upper right, however, is the tough reality we all face in industries that are dominated by uncertainty. A good process can lead to a bad outcome in the real world. In fact, it happens all the time. This is what happened to the casino when a player hit on 17 and won.

As tough as a good process/bad outcome combination is, nothing compares to the bottom left: bad process/good outcome. This is the wolf in sheep's clothing that allows for one-time success but almost always cripples any chance of sustained success - the player hitting on 17 and getting a four. Here's the rub: it's incredibly difficult to look in the mirror after a victory, any victory, and admit that you were lucky. If you fail to make that admission, however, the bad process will continue and the good outcome that occurred once will elude you in the future. Quite frankly, this is one of the things that makes Billy Beane as good as he is. He is quick to notice good luck embedded in a good outcome, and he refuses to pat himself on the back for it.
 

jtb

Banned
xbhaskarx:

^I agree with the basic premise of what you're saying. my disagreement with you is not with results/processes but with your use of possession/shots. you're conflating the possession/shots with a higher probability of success. that's a very reductive way of looking at the game. we've seen time and time again that possession alone is meaningless, shot count alone is meaningless, etc. stats can't capture things like defensive discipline, the shape of a team, the quality of a chance, etc.

(again, Chelsea won the CL literally parking the bus, same thing with Greece and the Euros parking the bus. and those are extreme examples. plenty of other teams have done well with counterattacking philosophies. Dortmund, Atletico, etc.)

for example, chances created on the counter are far more likely to be converted than tiki-taka-ing your way through two banks of four because everyone's out of position. I don't prescribe AT ALL to the theory that the USA (or any team, for that matter) needs to set out to control games or dominate possession in order to maximize their chances of winning. Mourinho's success alone should be proof of that, right?

And that's doubly the case if we don't have the players capable of playing a possession game—look at Spain. squad loaded with world class talent, but all it takes is one weak link (Xavi) for their entire style of play, their entire philosophy to crumble. it's one thing to say that we should play like Barcelona because Barcelona just won every trophy under the sun but Barcelona have the players capable of both dominating games and creating chances. do the USA? I'm a little skeptical.

so from the perspective of analyzing the USA's success/failure via stats—well, the only stat that really tells us anything is the results. that's what I believe, anyways. whenever teams say they "should" have done better, or "deserved" to go through... well, that's all a bit irrelevant isn't it? to a certain extent, the small sample size doesn't matter because you're not going to get a bigger sample. you get ONE shot at the world cup. you get ONE shot at a season. you don't get a do-over.
 

Alur

Member
the game isn't about who has the most shots or shots on goal or possession, it's about scoring goals. come on, you know this. 2-1 is a respectable scoreline. Chelsea won the CL final with a single shot on target. I don't understand the pessimism about something so irrelevant.

I have no idea how many shots Greece conceded en route to winning Euro 2004 but I'm sure it was a lot. that doesn't mean that they were wrong to play that way, but it also doesn't mean that playing that way is easy.

Exactly. I'm a huge hockey fan (it's my main sporting love, soccer my second) and in hockey shots on goal are everything, but in any given game you see a team win with 14 shots against another that took 47. Sometimes the puck (or in this case, the soccer ball) bounces your way. It almost did for USA.

We were outshot pretty handily throughout (which is indicative of being outclassed as well as losing), but not to degree we were in this last game.

USA:

(8) USA - Ghana (21)
(15) USA - Portugal (20)
(4) USA - Germany (13)
(14) USA - Belgium (39)

23.25 shots per game given up.

and for kicks, here's Germany's:

(13) Germany - Portugal (14)
(11) Germany - Ghana (20)
(13) Germany - USA (4)
(29) Germany - Algeria (11)

12.25 shots per game given up.

Basically, we were the soccer equivalent of the 2013-14 Maple Leafs...and just like them, our luck eventually ran out and we didn't make it very far.

If you had asked the majority a month ago if they'd be happy with this outcome, though, they'd have said hell yes.
 

jtb

Banned
I guess my frustration is with the use of stats in soccer. We should analyze the USA's (and every team's) performance but not through stats. soccer stats tell a very very small, limited story that completely strip away the context of the match.

I mean, the fact that the "assist" is considered an important statistic that can measure a creative player's value in soccer says it all, really. it took baseball like, what, 50 years, to recognize that the RBI was a meaningless stat? just because the stats exist don't mean that they tell us anything about the game or players or performance, etc. our understanding of how the stats relate to the game is really still in its infancy and there's a long way to go yet for Opta and co. with their work on analytics.
 

xbhaskarx

Member
xbhaskarx:

^I agree with the basic premise of what you're saying. my disagreement with you is not with results/processes but with your use of possession/shots.

Those are just two metrics to consider, I'm not saying they're the more important or the best. Unfortunately soccer is a bit limited when it comes to this stuff but I'm willing to weigh any others. Those are the ones that happened to be mentioned (possession in the group stage by ESPN, shots by Opta) and are therefore at our disposal.

so from the perspective of analyzing the USA's success/failure via stats—well, the only stat that really tells us anything is the results. that's what I believe, anyways.

Actually it doesn't sound like you agree with the basic premise of what I'm saying, at all...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom