US vs. Spain
by Joran Elias
25 June 2009
The United States men’s soccer team upset Spain yesterday and unsurprisingly it has caused quite a stir. They played pretty well and certainly deserved the win. However, it is my nature to be both contrary and pessimistic, I thought I’d offer some thoughts on the game.
I haven’t actually watched Spain play all that much so my observations on their performance are largely speculative. But to me, they seemed rather disorganized in back, at least early on. I’m not sure if that was a result of their back four not communicating well, or if it was some defensive midfielders not doing their job.
The US played pretty well for about 35 minutes. There were about 4-5 players who ran around like freakin maniacs in midfield pressuring the ball, scooping up errant passes etc. They were (to my eyes): Bradley, Dempsey, Clark, Davies and Spector. Davies and Spector are actually a forward and defender, but they were dropping back and pushing forward (respectively) quite a bit. During these early minutes, the US did what it does best: run around like crazy and be physical.
Spain started pretty flat and continued to be out hustled by the US for much of the first half. Altidore’s goal was legit, though he had a significant piece of help from the Spanish defender marking him who decided to try to climb over Altidore’s back rather than simply trying to keep him from turning.
For me, the second half was essentially a complete disaster for the US, despite Dempsey’s goal. I’m really curious why the US retreated into their defensive third for the rest of the game. Did Coach Bradley tell them to do that? Or was 35 minutes all they could muster physically at that intensity level?
Either way, hunkering down behind a 1-0 lead for 55 minutes against a team like Spain is, generally, not a recipe for success. Every now and then it’ll work, but it takes luck and your opponent has to have a bit of an off day.
I would have preferred to see the US at least try to maintain the intensity level they started with in the second half. It might have been riskier, and might even have cost them the game. But it would have been a good opportunity to see just how long they could keep it up.
As for individual performances, I was most impressed with Bradley and Spector. Mostly that’s based solely on the effort and intensity they put in during the first half. Bradley should be sent to bed without supper by his Dad for the red card. Unthinkably stupid foul. Which, sadly, has become a trend with this US team.
Altidore continues to fail to impress me. He does only a few things, and not particularly well. He sits up front and waits for the ball to be served through the defense. He gives chase and either is unmarked (rare) and shoots (meh) or he automatically falls to draw a foul. I was much happier with Davies, who at least displayed a wider toolkit, coming back to help develop plays in midfield.
Howard did well, as usual. Dempsey I can live with, if he is used properly. He should really just be a defensive midfielder and not push forward much.
Donovan? Meh. He’s been billed as the Savior of American Soccer for so long now, I always am disappointed when I watch him. He’s no Claudio Reyna, that’s for sure.
It was nice not to see Beasely out there and Jay DeMerit needs to go. Maybe Heyduk will be back soon.
All in all, it’s nice to see the US get a good result like this. But it doesn’t erase from my memory the travesty that was the Costa Rica game, or their uninspired win against Honduras, or their lopsided losses to Italy and Brazil.

Jun 29, 10:59 AM
In light of the final, at what point would you want to see the US take a defensive posture (as a function of lead and time remaining). I’m hoping your answer is “never.” If it isn’t, we need some of these rule changes.
Jun 29, 01:42 PM
I agree that in an ideal world, you really shouldn’t adopt a defensive posture. However, I do think that playing more defensively can be a good strategy for around 15-20 minutes with a 1 or 2 goal lead.
But it also matters what exactly we mean by “a defensive posture”. Part of the problem with the US is that a defensive posture means pulling all 11 men into their own defensive third of the field and having everyone, including the midfielders, just punt the ball down field.
Better teams when up by a goal or two will adopt a defensive posture by having their strikers pull back more to help hold the ball in midfield. They will string 4-5 passes together before pushing forward rather than only 2-3. But again, I would think it’s rare for a team to do that for more than 20 minutes or so.
I think I disagree slightly that there being any incentive for defensive play is not optimal from an entertainment perspective. Having a team pull back significantly in the final 15-20 minutes of a game with a 1 goal lead can create a significant amount of excitement, as the opposing team presses harder and harder for the equalizer.
On the other hand, some teams become so good at playing defensively, with 10 men behind the ball at all times that they simply make it their default style (e.g. Italy) and actually win World Cups doing that. And I agree that that is supremely boring to watch.