Write On Sports LLC - "U.S. National Team: Puzzle Pieces and the Big Picture" by Jeff Bull

U.S. National Team: Puzzle Pieces and the Big Picture

2007-03-29 15:57:29 | By: Jeff Bull

Monday morning, after the United States Men’s National Team’s (UMSNT) 3-1 over Ecuador, the talk centered on a resurgent Landon Donovan and the arrival of a new central midfield pairing of Michael Bradley and Benny Feilhaber. That assured display against a quality international team, one that advanced to the second round of the 2006 World Cup, produced feelings of optimism almost palpably thick.

Last night’s dreary and dull goalless draw against regional rivals Guatemala didn’t so much dissolve those happy sensations as it provided some sobering reminders to U.S. fans about the limitations of our national team. Chief among them is the fact that the USMNT continues to struggle with creativity in the attack; second, but no less important, the U.S. lacks the capacity to dictate the pace of a game.

The point isn’t to draw night-and-day comparisons between the games; Guatemala, certainly, went into last night’s game intent on throttling it to grind out a tie, whereas Ecuador came to play and win. Guatemala’s highly effective stall aside, flashes of inspiration came on scattered occasions. Some of these were collective, as around the 60th minute when the U.S. used a quick series of one- to two-touch passes to work the ball across the Guatemalan defense, where a pass from Clint Dempsey found a wide-open Justin Mapp; the resulting shot sliced wide, but there was no question that constituted the evening’s best.

Here and there, individual players also tried to force the game. Mapp, in particular, made frequent, slashing runs down the Guatemalans’ right flank; between holding the ball too long or running out of space, few of these ended well, but he still provided the most persistent threat to the Guatemalan bunker. First-time USMNT player Frank Simek prowled out of the defense, but only late in the game when it became clear that Plan A wasn’t working.

For all Guatemala’s success in slowing down the game and keeping the Americans in front of them, that hardly means the USMNT forgot how to play the game. Sunday’s game showed we have players - Donovan notably - who can exploit openings, and ruthlessly, provided they exist. Guatemala learned from Ecuador’s mistakes, rarely allowing Donovan, or any other U.S. attacking player, to receive the ball facing goal and with space in front of them.

Nice as the Ecuador win was - between Donovan’s hat-trick and the strong second half the USMNT produced - a bit of collective amnesia masks the relatively woeful first half of that game. After a very early goal, the U.S. spent the remainder of the first 45 minutes on their heels, scrambling to counter what looked like relentless Ecuadorian pressure. Every time one looked at the screen the ball poured toward the U.S. goal, often as not down the flanks. It wasn’t till the second half introduction of Michael Bradley (insert obligatory reference to the fact he’s the coach’s son here), and not really until Donovan scored two back-breaking goals in rapid-succession, that the U.S. truly took control of the game.

Taken together, the results don’t so much specifically vindicate or damn this player or that decision, so much as they gives us a sense of where the USMNT is. For instance, Benny Feilhaber, who was virtually drowned in accolades after the Ecuador game, looked ordinary as any other U.S. player last night; he was certainly less involved and effective than a player like Mapp. Donovan’s complete performance against Ecuador didn’t mean a thing against Guatemala, who found a way to stop him cold. But that hardly makes Donovan a bad player; the same applies to Feilhaber.

The take-away from both games comes with examining the players the U.S. actually has and figuring out how to get the most out of them, but with reference to the team as a whole. On days where Donovan gets marked into irrelevance, the team needs to work through other players to get around that. As noted above, Mapp became the most relevant force on offense last night and had he made more out of those promising runs things likely would have opened up for other players. There was also the moment around the 60th minute when the U.S. altered its approach and created an opening; had Mapp, the U.S.’s “almost” man-of-the-match, scored on that opportunity, we’d be having a conversation today about how the U.S. had improved offensively; it’s possible a few pundits would dub Mapp a key factor in making that happen. But it wasn’t Mapp the player that mattered there, but a change in our method of attack that created the opening.

It’s that tendency to shout, “Donovan’s back!” or that “Feilhaber is the answer!” that sends fans through contortions of ecstasy and doubt. That habit of mind seeks a quick fix to what is more of a long-term problem of putting together a puzzle. While the players the U.S. fields and their performance on any given day are clearly important, the U.S. has never produced a complete player - perhaps we never will. Because we don’t, the importance of choosing players whose strengths match with other players strengths - or no less significantly, mask over their weaknesses - becomes paramount to building an effective U.S. team. Putting that puzzle together successfully will go a long way to producing a successful stay in South Africa when that country hosts the World Cup in 2010.

There are no unheralded saviors in the offing, no one who is going to walk onto the team and transform it into a world power; the bunch of more or less familiar players we’ve seen in U.S. coach Bob Bradley’s first four games in charge are what he, or his successor, will have to work with. The crucial piece in finding success in the next World Cup will come less with the personnel, than in fitting them together correctly and teaching them to play the game as a team, with equal parts flexibility, creativity, and urgency.

And, yeah, that will be hard. Harder, even, than picking the players.

Comments

Gareth Sleger commented,
The US's biggest problem is that they don't use their speed on the wings enough with Beasley, Dempsey (they are still quick despite being in a rut), Mapp, Convey and so on. Instead of making a scrappy run up the middle and hope for luck, they need to spread the defense out. The BEST(and almost only) example of this was when Donovan scored his third goal against Ecuador. The ball was played to Beasley on the flank, which drew defenders leaving Donovan with space in the middle to score...I could go on, but you get the idea.
March 30, 2007 6:10 p.m.

Jeff Bull commented,
Thanks for adding that example, Gareth. That's more or less what I'm talking about, albeit with an addendum; when an option doesn't totally pan out, or pans out to "almost" effect, as happened with Mapp, an on-field change of tactics comes next. The idea is to keep the opposition guessing through flexibility. Lacking the precision to play the ball anywhere - e.g. up the middle as you discuss - we need to teach our players to switch the ball QUICKLY to make the most of our wing play...if we decide to go that way...but that's a deeper debate for another day.
April 2, 2007 10:57 a.m.

Comments

Post a comment