Re: [nas] USA-Korea -tactics.......

[RichieAnimal@cs.com]

In a message dated 6/11/02 7:19:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mrmoore01@prodigy.net writes:


> (You may notice I
> >     haven't said a bad word about Agoos or that cheesy guy :)


Why not Agoos is stinking out the place, and who is the cheesy guy?
> >     I comment on what I see.  What I saw was Friedel having to
> >     save us repeatedly.


It could be because we kept clearing the ball out to no one on our team. That seems to be our tactic to run out the time. A very stupid tactic to use because it only wastes seconds, and it keeps the ball at the opponents feet. Eventually, the team doing this will get burned for a goal sooner or later unless they luck out. That is why Korea scored and got their draw.

> >     Agreed, although it's not fair to judge them on one match.
> >     More accurately, "they did not finish against us".


Right maybe Korea will be able to finish against Portugal. We will have to wait and see. Also have to see if Portugal can finish against Korea. That should be a fun game for one of those two teams.
> >     More accurately, say that we bunkered because we just didn't
> >     have any other option.


Bunker and counter attack is a good strategy when your  worried about Korea's speed. Why? We are already back to defend. Then if you can get a lead. Korea is forced to push more players into their attack to break the bunker. Do that you may leave your self open for our counter attack, and then instead of just being behind 1-0 you find your self behind 2 zip. Our problem was a long clearance to nobody is not the start of the counter attack. We just cleared to stall and not to start are own two or three player counter attack. 


> We were just hoping to ride out the storm and escape with a result. 


That is exactly right, we should have tried to make the 1-0 lead into a 2-0 lead with a real counter attack at the right times. By result I mean a win not letting Korea get the draw.


 And we were also
> hoping to keep possession a bit and break out a few times, but    we couldn't make that work


We could have made it work at times, but not with a clearance as the first pass to start an attack and hope McBride could get under it and redirect the ball to a speed player.. You have to have the balls to make a few short passes, and make them chase the ball until we could make that break out pass. We are able to do that, but didn't try.
> > > Some tactics are designed to allow some possession.


Proper spacing and use of the back pass allows for possession. Players like the Surfer kills a possession game he can't pass for crap. A substitution for him to Regis, with the instruction to Regis just to support from the back and not to push up infront of the other backs on attack would have worked well for us. Plus it keeps Agoss back to the center of the field instead of the left flank to close space.


>
>      We obviously conceded midfield possession in the second halves. Korea
> >     had 2/3 of the field empty to stroll through, so they walked it up
> >     to our third and set up shop.  That's clearly by design, and
> >     certainly a reasonable idea.


Reasonable idea got to be kidding it was stupid soccer.

Since it was basically the only way we
> >     could "counter" their speed advantage and nullify their constant
> >     threat of breakaways.


Defending with number backs is smart. But that had nothing to do with our own counter attack which was non existent by all the clearances to nobody. Hoping that Mcbread could get under one of them and redirect to a player with speed when he is tired is stupid soccer. Plus he can take a beating doing that. Just look at the Korean player who had his head opened up trying to win a header. Well, better him then McBride.  

  
> t's certainly wiser than what Poland tried against either team.)


Just one note on Poland their keeper was absolutely terrible against Portugal. Is he always that bad? Was he that bad against Korea as well? 

Richie