Jump to content
Olympique_de_Marseille

USA vs Canada - Friday Nov 15th, Orlando FL

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, TOcanadafan said:

Good take from Carmelina Moscato... very much agree that Berhalter’s switch in tactics/formation to a 4-2-3-1 really un-did our plans.  It means that Herman needs to do a better job of preparing for all the possible “what-ifs” the opponent might bring and be willing and able to adjust tactics in game.

https://canpl.ca/article/moscato-3-takeaways-on-canmnts-loss-to-the-u-s

Tell me about it. Herdman had the opportunity to change something. Maybe change to a 4-3-3, pushing Davies up and Kaye at LB all without making a sub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpursFlu said:

I actually think this US team is a bit underrated. The anxiety and impatience of their fans mixed with a disrespect towards us have people with a diluted sense of the current reality. The US is just kinda stuck between 2 cycles right now but you'll start to see their new generation start to punch thru.  I think we've started a nice rivalry with them for years to come 

Agree but it may be several years before we play them again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone has likely already stated this, but I think the entire game can be summed up in that moment when Davies tried to manufacture a "non-backpass" to Borjan.  First, it was very naïve, a sign that our core team is still quite young, that maybe Davies was playing in the wrong place, that Herdman got his line up and tactics wrong, and that we've still a long ways to go before we see the sun!  Yes, the US got their tactics right and were clinical in capitalizing on our sloppy play, but they were not especially dominant last night.  We certainly did not make it hard for them, and part of that has to do with formation and tactics. 

Understanding Davies at LB for Bayern vs. Canada is key here, not just to Davies' performance, but to our overall success, which includes Herdman's ability to understand the game.  Davies at LB for Bayern is asked to play defense first, and only spring forward judiciously.  He is still learning the position, in no way comes to it naturally--his new coach at Bayern has pointed out how poor his positioning is--and has an amazing supporting cast at Bayer who DO know positioning etc at the highest level.  Not so with Canada. Sure, he was asked to play LB defensively by Herdman, but he was also told to be Phonzie, marauding forward like a free gazelle whenever he saw the chance.  The issue isn't the fact that he surged forward, but the fact that he was caught between two roles, which is never an easy thing for even the most seasoned footballers to pull off. 

For a game like this, I would have challenged the US to try to break us down, then hit them on the counter.  I am not saying we should have bunkered, but we should have acknowledged their formation and tactical shift, and the fact that we were playing on their turf. Something like:

Laryea  Cornelius Vitoria  Miller

          Piette Kaye

Hoillet  Arfield   Davies

             David

This line up would provide Miller with coverage--Kaye and Davies--would allow Kaye or Piette to step forward when there was an opportunity, would have made us tough to break down, and would give us some solid counter attacking options with Davies and Hoillet on the wings.

In short, we need more games.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Beaver 2.0 said:

Someone has likely already stated this, but I think the entire game can be summed up in that moment when Davies tried to manufacture a "non-backpass" to Borjan.  First, it was very naïve, a sign that our core team is still quite young, that maybe Davies was playing in the wrong place, that Herdman got his line up and tactics wrong, and that we've still a long ways to go before we see the sun!  Yes, the US got their tactics right and were clinical in capitalizing on our sloppy play, but they were not especially dominant last night.  We certainly did not make it hard for them, and part of that has to do with formation and tactics. 

Understanding Davies at LB for Bayern vs. Canada is key here, not just to Davies' performance, but to our overall success, which includes Herdman's ability to understand the game.  Davies at LB for Bayern is asked to play defense first, and only spring forward judiciously.  He is still learning the position, in no way comes to it naturally--his new coach at Bayern has pointed out how poor his positioning is--and has an amazing supporting cast at Bayer who DO know positioning etc at the highest level.  Not so with Canada. Sure, he was asked to play LB defensively by Herdman, but he was also told to be Phonzie, marauding forward like a free gazelle whenever he saw the chance.  The issue isn't the fact that he surged forward, but the fact that he was caught between two roles, which is never an easy thing for even the most seasoned footballers to pull off. 

For a game like this, I would have challenged the US to try to break us down, then hit them on the counter.  I am not saying we should have bunkered, but we should have acknowledged their formation and tactical shift, and the fact that we were playing on their turf. Something like:

Laryea  Cornelius Vitoria  Miller

          Piette Kaye

Hoillet  Arfield   Davies

             David

This line up would provide Miller with coverage--Kaye and Davies--would allow Kaye or Piette to step forward when there was an opportunity, would have made us tough to break down, and would give us some solid counter attacking options with Davies and Hoillet on the wings.

In short, we need more games.  

 

 

 

We needed a point, the onus was on the US to break us down and based on the players we have and the team the USA has and how they played it was actually the best case scenario for us.  We have lots of good defensive midfielders and we have Davies and Hoilett who are very good on the counter.  The USA has been plagued with mistakes trying to build play and break teams down and that is another check mark for setting up solid with an eye to counter attacking when the chance arrives.  This is simple tactics 101 and lots of us see it, yet Herdman complicated things because he's trying to prove he belongs at the level I'd imagine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, villus said:

We needed a point, the onus was on the US to break us down and based on the players we have and the team the USA has and how they played it was actually the best case scenario for us.  We have lots of good defensive midfielders and we have Davies and Hoilett who are very good on the counter.  The USA has been plagued with mistakes trying to build play and break teams down and that is another check mark for setting up solid with an eye to counter attacking when the chance arrives.  This is simple tactics 101 and lots of us see it, yet Herdman complicated things because he's trying to prove he belongs at the level I'd imagine.  

In a game like this...

Benito Floro would have been most welcome

arrested development hiding GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, villus said:

We needed a point, the onus was on the US to break us down and based on the players we have and the team the USA has and how they played it was actually the best case scenario for us.  We have lots of good defensive midfielders and we have Davies and Hoilett who are very good on the counter.  The USA has been plagued with mistakes trying to build play and break teams down and that is another check mark for setting up solid with an eye to counter attacking when the chance arrives.  This is simple tactics 101 and lots of us see it, yet Herdman complicated things because he's trying to prove he belongs at the level I'd imagine.  

In Vitoria's post match interview, he said Herdman asked if they wanted to bunker but players asked for attack mode. 

Canadian players have shown they tend to overestimate themselves. So, Herdman shouldn't have listened to them. Most people on this forum would have also gone with attack mode given how Floroball was eviscerated but now minds have changed? Or is all of this opining based on personality issues with coaches?

Don't know if counter attacking would have created more than the goal scored but it may have forced a draw. 

3G is all about players being in the right position. The US players were mostly in the right spot last night and made no major self-inflicted mistakes, so it would have been difficult to break them down ex during set pieces. US doesn't really have chops to break down Canada either except during set pieces and when errors are made by the backline and goalkeeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, red card said:

In Vitoria's post match interview, he said Herdman asked if they wanted to bunker but players asked for attack mode. 

Canadian players have shown they tend to overestimate themselves. So, Herdman shouldn't have listened to them. Most people on this forum would have also gone with attack mode given how Floroball was eviscerated but now minds have changed? Or is all of this opining based on personality issues with coaches?

Don't know if counter attacking would have created more than the goal scored but it may have forced a draw. 

3G is all about players being in the right position. The US players were mostly in the right spot last night and made no major self-inflicted mistakes, so it would have been difficult to break them down ex during set pieces. US doesn't really have chops to break down Canada either except during set pieces and when errors are made by the backline and goalkeeper.

100% we should have parked the bus and hit them on the counter attack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, red card said:

In Vitoria's post match interview, he said Herdman asked if they wanted to bunker but players asked for attack mode. 

Canadian players have shown they tend to overestimate themselves. So, Herdman shouldn't have listened to them. Most people on this forum would have also gone with attack mode given how Floroball was eviscerated but now minds have changed? Or is all of this opining based on personality issues with coaches?

Don't know if counter attacking would have created more than the goal scored but it may have forced a draw. 

3G is all about players being in the right position. The US players were mostly in the right spot last night and made no major self-inflicted mistakes, so it would have been difficult to break them down ex during set pieces. US doesn't really have chops to break down Canada either except during set pieces and when errors are made by the backline and goalkeeper.

There were a few options 1) attack mode 2) park the bus 3) in between where we come out and close down and press pick our spots to press and hunt in packs

 

2 and 3 have very solid arguments, 1 doesn't, we don't need to win and we are on the road against a team that is fired up and a tie is a huge boost for us and allows us to keep getting points if I'm not mistaken, but on top of that 2 and 3 for me still give us a great chance at getting a win because the USA have showed they try to play out and make a lot of mistakes and struggle to pass out and break down teams.  Even if we went with attack mode I don't think we have the team to dominate possession and get two attacking fullbacks forward and pin the US back in their half, they played a very attacking lineup and still have talent.  

I think clearly 3 is the way to go, you also set yourself up to adjust in game no matter what happens, starting the same way we did in Canada made a lot of sense and we back off when we don't have a chance to win the ball and when we do we come out and press as a unit and work our socks off with David and Davies pressing at the back and the 4 mids being solid with one attacking fullback and one fullback that is going to stay home and cover for the side Davies is mainly patrolling giving him freedom to attack and roam.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, red card said:

In Vitoria's post match interview, he said Herdman asked if they wanted to bunker but players asked for attack mode. 

Canadian players have shown they tend to overestimate themselves. So, Herdman shouldn't have listened to them. Most people on this forum would have also gone with attack mode given how Floroball was eviscerated but now minds have changed? Or is all of this opining based on personality issues with coaches?

Don't know if counter attacking would have created more than the goal scored but it may have forced a draw. 

3G is all about players being in the right position. The US players were mostly in the right spot last night and made no major self-inflicted mistakes, so it would have been difficult to break them down ex during set pieces. US doesn't really have chops to break down Canada either except during set pieces and when errors are made by the backline and goalkeeper.

People on the forum also underestimated the States ability to 1) get motivated and 2) adjust tactically to what we did in Toronto. They were never a poor team, even without some of their best players.  

- One thing I noticed, allowing myself to reflect further, David is one of the better runners of the break I have seen, even against decent opposition but he has willing runners around him with his club. I don't get to see Cavallini very much, so my judgment only carries so much weight but he was not making the smart runs. 

I think we also have to look at what we do when something goes wrong, the quick goal here, the first goal against Haiti etc. We have talent but flaws in a lot of area, mistakes are going to happen, how can we respond better.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone noted this on quote from Cornelius on reddit.  I thought it was interested:

We tried playing a style today which was different from what we did in Toronto, but it felt a bit forced,” said Derek Cornelius, who came on for the injured Doneil Henry in the second half. “I think that’s what played into their hands in the first half. A lot of what we wanted to do, we tried to force it when it wasn’t on and just gave them opportunities from nothing.”

 

https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2019/11/15/canada-admit-early-usmnt-goal-loss-was-worst-thing-could-have-happened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lamptern said:

Why we make changes while the systems works for us and players feel comfortable? 

Because it was at home, now you are on the road and you are damn sure the USA was going to do things different with a different roster.  The adjustments herdman made for the first game worked..he tried to craft a gameplan to match the opponent and situation for game 2 and we got ****** by a bad bounce minutes into the game.  And from there on they couldnt get it back and I blame that on too few games, not enough real tests for this team in the last few years.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DavemTFC said:

https://www.clippituser.tv/c/genmea

Clip of the Davies backpass, I see no lip movement from Borjan. That doesn't prove anything necessarily but still I wager this was nearly 100% on Davies. Ignore my earlier Borjan hot take

As a keeper, Borjan should know the law at least as well, if not BETTER than Davies. He could easily have hoofed it out with his foot but chose to catch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've played in games against people who did that and had no idea you couldn't.  I've never seen it come up but apparently the ref got it right, I don't think its a big issue, clearly neither Davies or Borjan had any idea and I can't really blame them either, its pretty damn obscure law.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, villus said:

I've played in games against people who did that and had no idea you couldn't.  I've never seen it come up but apparently the ref got it right, I don't think its a big issue, clearly neither Davies or Borjan had any idea and I can't really blame them either, its pretty damn obscure law.  

Yeah, if I am ranking all the things that went wrong, that's pretty far down the list. I am more worried about how we played and what our gameplan was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW - after the loss, the players shook hands and came to applaud the travelling fans.  Then they reconvened in a big circle huddle at the centre of the pitch for a solid 1-2 minutes.  I found this to be an interesting moment.  Maybe it says something about team unity, or maybe it doesn't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just re-watched the highlights ... I know there were multiple players at fault on a few of the goals, but am I correct that Henry was majorly culpable on the first Zardes goal and the Long goal?  On the first Zardes goal, he seems to hesitate to check if someone is behind him, but let's Zardes get position on him, and Zardes was the clear threat there in my eyes ... on the Long goal, DH just seems to lose him ...

I don't want to be overly harsh on DH, but given that the first goal was partially the result of a fluke bounce and the 4th goal was likely in part due to the circumstances at that point in the match, those two errors were MASSIVE!

Edited by Addona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that thinks the first goal isn't the result of a flukey bounce? It was a result of leaving players completely unmarked inside the box. We should have been able to deal with that, flukey bounce or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kent said:

Am I the only one that thinks the first goal isn't the result of a flukey bounce? It was a result of leaving players completely unmarked inside the box. We should have been able to deal with that, flukey bounce or not.

It was the result of a fluke bounce but it should have been dealt with. Just look at a still picture of the moment when the ball gets to Morris. Our guys are just standing there not marking anyone - poor defence 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Addona said:

I just re-watched the highlights ... I know there were multiple players at fault on a few of the goals, but am I correct that Henry was majorly culpable on the first Zardes goal and the Long goal?  On the first Zardes goal, he seems to hesitate to check if someone is behind him, but let's Zardes get position on him, and Zardes was the clear threat there in my eyes ... on the Long goal, DH just seems to lose him ...

I don't want to be overly harsh on DH, but given that the first goal was partially the result of a fluke bounce and the 4th goal was likely in part due to the circumstances at that point in the match, those two errors were MASSIVE!

How about this...on #1 David is beaten to the low cross into the box, and Davies lets his man go, not covering the left side and thats right where the ball ends up, #2, Vitoria blows the header, then doesnt attack the crosser and both defenders (mainly Henry) let Zardes go between them. Goal #3, Henry misses the header this time but it looks like Long was Vitorias man, either way screwed up set piece that everyone owns a piece of.  #4 Cornelius blows the header and Piette chests it to Zardes who buries it.  At the end of the day, Vittoria and Henry did not seem to be on the same page at all, harsh to hang it all on Henry.  Some of that even has to go to Herdman, as cornelius and Vittoria seemed to be working well, maybe had better communication etc.  Probably even Henry and Cornelius would have done better together.  But Herdman is watching them in camp, he should know who pairs up best etc.  Maybe if we played more games we could figure this stuff out.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...