MattMatros.com - Poker Strategy from Experience

Reader Comments:

Not sure I agree with 1). They really looked over-matched. Did anyone win a 50-50 ball? Could anyone keep up with 34-year old Pavel Nedved? Did anyone have any imagination? Reyna didn't do much besides hit one just-off-the-mark shot. Did McBride actually play in this game? After looking a bit nervous for his first 20 minutes only Eddie Johnson showed signs of being consistenly dangerous. Convey got into positions but his crosses were weak. Arena's got his work cut out for him. Hope he knows what buttons to push.

- posted by Tad : 6/12/2006 2:20 PM

I don't think we were prepared mentally for the beginning of the game for sure. Is there no position more important than left back? With Lewis playing out of position there, you have to instruct him, "Hey, your #1 job is to prevent the ball on getting to that Kareem-like guy in the middle." Exposed may be too harsh a term, and it may be too close to the result as you suggest to even have an opinion, but we will struggle with certain aspects of the game during this tourney. It was the worst possible start as we aren't a squad that will embrace creating something from nothing. Reyna looked like a player, Johnson looked like a player. Credit Bruce with trying to make something happen, but this indeed looks like a steep hill to climb. I'll push on with this and await Matt's more expert commentary (Matt, no online poker for the next few hours, right?). We were so exposed in the midfield really. McBride is what he is, and that means that he has to have strong midfield play. Forget reading any greater stories into all this (our ranking, state of soccer for us, etc.). The World Cup starts with three games. We now must win our next game then the last. It's our only chance out. And getting out is all it is about. Good showings as a goal are behind us.

- posted by cc : 6/12/2006 2:20 PM

Tad,

We were definitely over-matched. I didn't say we played well, we sure didn't play well. But some people are making this out to be the worst game we've ever played. The same people seem to forget that the magic squad of 2002 lost 3-1 to a lousy Poland side (and we were down 3-0 in that game, and would've been down 4-0 if Friedel hadn't saved a PK). This Czech team was worlds better than that Poland team.

Some guys had a bad match (Beasley, Lewis, McBride, Onyewu). Some guys had an OK match (Donovan, Convey, O'Brien, Mastroeni, Pope, Cherundolo, Keller) The only ones who had good matches were Reyna and Johnson. That stinks, but I really think the Czech Republic looked fantastic and if they keep playing this way, they're going to steamroll through this group, with or without Koller. We played OK, but we knew OK wouldn't cut it in this group. Combine that "OK" play with an unforgivable mistake in the fifth minute, and you have a really disappointing day.

CC,

I total agree about Lewis, and I would add, how the hell did Gooch not hear the words "you need to be draped all over Koller every second of this match"? And I also agree that, because of our crappy goal differential, it looks like we'll need six points to get out of this group, unless something really weird happens.

Yeah, I'm still depressed.

- posted by Matt Matros : 6/12/2006 3:48 PM

Matt, don't know if you saw Arena's comments (I just saw story on Soccernet, so I'm sure there is more out there). Wow is about all I can say. He threw just about everybody under the bus, from your pre-Cup criticism of Keller's distribution (which I don't think had anything to do with the first goal, do you?) to harsh words for Donovan and Beasley. To your point, maybe Gooch thought Arena said Keller instead of Koller. It can be confusing.

Should we have just been a defensive shell in the second half and played for a 1-0 loss with maybe a fluke tie? Lots of maybe's come to mind. Maybe Arena forgot what got him here: inspiring an overachieving bunch that were fearless and tireless. MLS rags who wanted to prove themselves. These MLS rejects? Well, now they've gone on to places like PSV (where Beas has been hot and cold), Leverkusen (where Landon decided to bail so he could be great somewhere), Fulham (McB is a legit complimentary offensive threat who is tough as nails), Citeh (ditto), some long German name (Keller's solid, but Bruce could have believed in Howard if he wanted), Ajax now some other team (JOB just too hurt for too long).

We aren't going to be a team that can come back from a deficit any time in the near future, and we crumbled in the face of adversity. Is it the worst game ever? Hardly, but I think again it exposed us as being a team that forgot what made us great: an understanding that we didn't truly deserve to be on the pitch with these great teams, but each guy individually decided that he wanted to belong and would work unselfishly to scrape and claw. We believed the hype and the Group of Death and the rankings. Was it leadership from Reyna, Keller, and McBride? Maybe it is an MLS vs. Europe, a youth vs. experience. We'll read about all this stuff, but here's hoping that a couple more guys leave it all out there. And I for one would much rather see JOB and Johnson join in and some of the others sit and watch a bit. Let JOB go until he can't walk anymore, then sub him. To Tad, McBride has to be serviced, and this was never a mystery heading into the Cup. He is what he is, and it's the hand we're dealt. He's great at who he is, but he can't transform into Henry or Rooney. He's a short Koller who will get back like Yorke was doing on defense if it's necessary and understands his limitations. He definitely starts along side Johnson next.

- posted by cc : 6/12/2006 5:50 PM

This post has been removed by the author.

- posted by Matt : 6/12/2006 9:08 PM

Hi Matt:

I'm a casual soccer fan, and I never played high school soccer or anything. So take what I say with that grain of salt.

I agree with your assessment that the first goal caused a major problem. The U.S. team doesn't look like it has the ability to create goals without counterattacks. Once the Czechs were able to pack it in defensively, i didn't see much hope.

That said, the passing was atrociously sloppy today. How many times did the U.S. give away a ball that could have been played sucessfully, and that the Czechs would have played successfully? Many, many times.

Furthermore, the U.S. hardly ever aggressively attacked today. Except for Johnson, not a one of them looked interested in creating scoring opportunities for themselves. I was particularly dismayed with the corner kicks. I think they had two on the day, and they played both of them short and never got a decent cross out of them. Other times, they did get a decent cross and had virtually no offensive players in the box.

I believe you when you say it wasn't as bad as the annoucers made it out to be. But let me go on record saying this: a similar effort in the next 10 days will not beat Ghana, nevermind Italy.

Thanks for the coverage, keep it up.

matt

- posted by Matt : 6/12/2006 9:09 PM

Matt,

I am not sure how you can possibly think this team has any chance against Italy. I mean the US had one chance, Reynas post and never threatened the goal. Italy has a superior back end to the Czecks and I don't see how the US will be able to penetrate that. The US defenders gave way too much room in their own end to the Czech midfield, as well, i don't understand how Arena thought they could score playing a lone striker up front. This team just doesn't have anyone with enough creativity up front and thier back end just won't get the job done. Sorry

Jason

- posted by Anonymous : 6/13/2006 2:58 AM

CC,

I didn't see Keller's poor distribution on the first goal, but I believe it happened. I sort of had my head in my hands for a few minutes after that first goal, so I didn't really analyze it much or watch the replays.

Jason,

If we play the way we played yesterday, we don't have a chance against Italy. I think we have a chance because I know we can play much better.

- posted by Matt Matros : 6/13/2006 6:56 AM

Good luck in the rest of your games.As Scotland aren't there the USA are one of the teams I'm supporting.( due to ex Rangers player Reyna in side).

This is probabaly the wrong blog but I love your book Matt.Read it on holiday and I'm halfway through reading it again!

- posted by littleacornman : 6/13/2006 11:01 AM

Let's play "I'm Bruce Arena and look who is starting against Italy"...

Let's see...

a) We have to win...
b) Italy have a formidable defense...
c) We need to make some changes (if it's broke, you gotta try to fix it)...

We have to have 2 (at least) up front. So...

11. Eddie Johnson is automatic. Only player to look dangerous on more than one occasion against the Czechs.
10. Brian Ching. He played well in the run-up games and deserves a shot. I know McBride needs service and got none -- and I like McBride -- but if you pay 90 minutes and don't touch the ball (only a very slight exaggeration) something has got to give.

Midfield looked to be our biggest problem. We need more bodies. So...

9. Donovan. At this level he's better supporting the strikers and/or becoming a 3rd striker. He just has to play better. He needs to be running at the defense like he did on the play were he was hip-Czeched down by the central defender. And not just once in the game. He needs to discover his inner Roscinsky.
8. O'Brien. Yes, let him run 'til he drops dead. He looked willing.
7. Reyna. If we don't want Keller banging the ball 70 yards every time he takes possession (and we don't) then Claudio needs to get his butt back there and demand the ball and start things up.
6. Convey. But, please, try to hit a cross with some conviction and maybe one or two will get past the first defender.
5. Clint Dempsey. Like Ching, good run-up, deserves a shot. And no one's every accussed him of a lack of self-confidence.

That means that if the referee is doing his job and counting the players before the kickoff we only have 3 spots left for defenders...

4. Beasley. Lewis is redundent with Convey. They both just glide down the touchline and cross the ball. Often they even seem to be getting in each others way. Beasley is perhaps the best man-to-man defender on the team and he's fast enough to stay with anyone. And if he gets the chance to attack from left back it's likely to be in a way that isn't just a Convey-clone taking a turn.
3. Onyewu. He's the only physical presence on the team.
2. Pope. And he'll need to have the game of his life. He's the swing guy and will have to make a lot of correct decisions to identify the danger man each time Italy attacks.

1. Keller. Let's not get too crazy!

Looking over this lineup it's easy to see the problem with American soccer at this level. We've made remarkable advances since 1990 and can now field a team that can compete skill-wise with the other teams. We don't have a magician like Henri or [name any Brazilian] but the players all have world-class skills. The problem is that over the last 25 years while we were catching up in skills the rest of the soccer world was advancing in the physique department. And I'm not just talking about a freak-of-nature like Koller. Over-all the other teams are bigger, faster, and stronger. We've made advances ourselves on the faster front. But we seem to have gone backward a bit -- at least with this current team -- in terms of bigger and stronger. International soccer has begun to go the way of the NFL: take the best athlete and create what you need out of him.

Ok, enough doom and gloom. Time to go out and give those Italians a case of the Azzurris.

- posted by Tad : 6/13/2006 11:11 AM

Hey guys,

First of all, let me express my relief that my team (Argentina) got all three points against a very tough Ivory Coast side. I'll post a match report here with analysis if there's interest.

As for the United States: (PS: Remember to take everything I say with a grain of salt; I'm hardly an expert on the US team, unlike Matt. US fans are lucky to have him!)

It's too bad the US side came out flat vs. the Czechs; the lack of creativity in midfield made it impossible to seriously threaten the Czech goal. The attack-minded players on the team were generally either anonymous or wasteful. The Czech midfield reminded me of their good games at Euro 2004, where Bruckner's men were direct, yet seldom wasteful in possession. (A direct style of play, a la England, often results in frequent, needless loss of possession).

I think part of the problem is the way the buildup has been hyped. People back home (i.e, Wynalda and Foudy in the ESPN2 box) seemed to genuinely expect the team to progress to the second round. I know it's still possible, but almost any knowledgeable observer outside the United States would happily have bet large sums against it before the tournament even started. I understand that US soccer has come a long way, but I think the soccer industry in this country simply has no idea how far behind the best teams the Nats really are.

The US side is primarily comprised of MLS stars and relative bit-players in Europe (with some obvious exceptions). The Czechs and Italians are both worldclass teams filled with stars plying their trades in Europe's best leagues. Nedved is one of the best midfielders of his generation, Koller has been terrorizing Bundesliga defenses for years, Petr Cech is the best 'keeper in the Premiership, Ujalfarsi (sp?) manned a Fiorentina backline which just qualified for the Champions League, etc. And lets not even talk about the Italians. Honestly, it frightens me that many US Soccer talking heads are sufficiently out of touch with reality to believe the Nats can regularly compete with those guys.

Bottom line: The US qualifying from its group would be one of the all-time upsets in soccer history; and that was true before the tournament even started. US fans: Your side has come a long way. But it's still light years behind the best. Two excellent wins in 2002 (Portugal, Mexico) do not make a world class team!

I hope this doesn't sound too negative; just trying to provide a bit of a reality check for the diehards. Good luck to your boys against the Italians!

- posted by Matan : 6/14/2006 6:07 PM

Matan,
Categorizing emerging from the group as one of the "all time upsets" in soccer history is simply ludicrous. The US has/had more than a fighting chance to get through.

Anything can happen in a 3 game tournament. If Reyna's ball goes in and we hold down the fort the rest of the way, everyone is talking about what a great result we got. A bounce here and a bounce there can determine your fate. That is not to take anything away from the Czechs-they outplayed the US. But the margin is so slim.

To say US soccer is not competitive with the world's elite is simply wrong. A 2-0 loss to Italy will not change my mind. This is a deep team with plenty of talent and a capable manager. Whether they play up to their potential this week is largely up to luck, how they match up with certain squads, and the general form of their players.

France did not score a goal last world cup. Netherlands did not qualify in '02. So I would hold back from drawing such drastic conclusions after one game or one world cup considered in isolation.

- posted by Chris McHugh : 6/14/2006 7:44 PM

Matan/Chris--

I have to lean more toward Matan. A simple starting point would be to take our roster, then compare it to the top five-eight teams in tourney (I'll use England as an example). Who from the US would start for England? Keller possibly, then that's it. Would Sol Campbell be starting for the US? Heck, I'd plug him in tomorrow. Defoe? Wright Phillips? Absolutely. Does that mean that we haven't come a long way? Of course not. Does it mean that we can't put a string of results together? Sure we can. Can we beat Italy? We'll be underdogs, but we can beat them. Does the Czech result show our true colors? In some ways it does.

We know we don't have world-class strikers that strike fear in teams. I love McBride, saw him in December at Craven Cottage. He clawed his way into Fulham's lineup and is great for his workmanship as well as his head. Most of the world doesn't have great scorers. Defense for us is an unfortunate liability. We are no longer porous, but we have no left back, we aren't horrible but don't have terrific defenders, and Bruce doesn't want to go the route of let's 0-0 one for the Gipper. We easily could have gotten out of the first day with a 1-0 result, but Arena believed in these guys and wanted the point or win. Our midfield seems to be hot and cold. can Beas and Landon turn into Koreans and run all over the field for 95+ minutes? They should. That to me is what US Soccer was about in 2002: a team that absolutely worked and worked, got extremely lucky to get out of the group when they had their destiny in their hands, then played two great games.

This wouldn't be the greates upset of all time, not by a long shot. But really, the top tier is loaded with waves of talent playing with the best in the world. France crashed out last time, Holland wasn't even there. I think our challenge is that Arena and US Soccer have got to convince the best US players and MLS to get these guys over to Europe. Matt, you know I've said this many times: Landon would be significantly better if he had fought for a spot at Leverkusen.

- posted by cc : 6/15/2006 4:16 PM