Today, June 30, ESPN held a chat with fans on SportsNation. Here's one of the questions verbatim:
U.S. Soccer:
Andrew (Chicago)
After coaching our USMNT for the last four years, and having now coached at the World Cup, what two or three areas do you recognize as needing the most improvement if we are to be consistently successful at the highest level?
Bob Bradley (1:43 PM)
I would say this World Cup we created a lot of chances, but our finishing wasn't as good as it needed to be.
Finishing. That's all he has to say. They played like two different teams in the first and second halves of each game they played. The Jekyll and Hyde of it, albeit exciting, was almost ridiculous. The U.S. team buried itself in this tournament and they did that by giving up goals EARLY. Even the game winning goal in the Ghana game came mere minutes into extra time. Maybe the defense thought it was the actual beginning of a game. Maybe Bradley's droning, monotone pre-game psych up sends the players into a catatonic slumber; a zombie state that takes at least 45 minutes to wake up from. I think their finishing was on par or better than a lot of teams in the tournament. You have to remember that we had two legal goals disallowed. But that's all beside the point. Playing from behind the entire tournament was what beat the U.S.
Bradley is still is in denial, or simply ignorant to what the real issue is.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Dear U.S. Soccer: It's nobody's fault (except maybe Bob Bradley's)
Here's some tough love for Bob Bradley: you can't play from behind forever. Your team gave up goals in the opening minutes 3 out of 4 matches in this World Cup. In the Algeria game, where the team managed a shutout, there was still an awful breakdown in the 6th minute leading to a post-rattling near miss. Maybe you want to coach them up a little and get a starting lineup that sticks?
You can't expect to get very far when you had the lead for 3 whole minutes the entire tournament. And the lineup changes? Ricardo Clark coughed up the ball in the midfield which led to the first Ghana goal. The Algeria game wasn't by any means the U.S. team playing to its full potential but they were threatening. So why all the tinkering? Maybe that's why the team is slow to start matches. Players that are used to playing together as a cohesive unit have the confidence in one another, and themselves to not make careless mistakes. And think of it from a player's perspective: if you start one match, then are benched the next, what message does that send? What does that do to your confidence?
The US team needs to wake up EARLY. They've conceded early in 8 of 22 matches dating back to the last World Cup. This puts immediate pressure on the offense to respond, and more on players like Tim Howard to not concede another goal. I don't think it is nerves, lack of experience, or injuries. It's lack of leadership and preparation. The U.S. team ran out of games where they could simply rely on their resilience. Top teams in the elimination stage will pounce on any and all opportunities, capitalize on them, then clamp down defensively and slam the door for good. You cannot afford consistent mistakes late in the tournament. Or it is four more years, more questions, more rebuilding. It was bound to happen eventually.
I do believe the US has the strikers (Altidore, Dempsey) and playmaker (Donovan) to put balls in the back of the net. But it only takes one to win a match. When the ball is in the attacking third these players have the speed and ability to create and finish. But when it comes to hanging with top European and South American teams, they simply cannot compete all over the field. The central midfielders need to stop pushing so far forward and make defending their priority. This is what it takes to win a World Cup. It takes toughness and tactics. Toughness all over the field, physical and mental. Look at the Italian side from the 2006 Cup. They did not win by out-attacking opponents. They won because of Fabio Cannavaro's organized defense and Buffon's brick-wall goalkeeping (also Materazzi's gamesmanship and Zidane's temper).
And this is not a player deficit. This is a lack of preparation. This is why it is so upsetting that the US wasn't able to tap Jurgen Klinsmann for national team coach after the Cup failure of 2006. His success at the 2006 cup and passion for scoring AND defending turned a decent side into one that should have made it into the final. The term "total football" is a little scary, like a nazi-era throwback to world domination, but it's true tactics for winning. You have to execute all over the field and cannot afford a lapse on any level. Mistakes happen in every game, but your system is there to prevent a breakdown. It is possible to play with passion, flair, a hunger for the goal and a tough, defensive system that is sure of itself. A coach like Klinsmann simply brings discipline, structure, and mental toughness. I think the US team has adequate skill. This is what they need to win.
Ask Dunga from Brazil. He has made it publicly clear that he is disposing of the "Joga Bonita" tag, the flash that has endeared fans to Brazil's style for so long. But style doesn't win competitions, substance does. He has said to the press that in order to compete with the top European teams the national team needs to change it's tactics, its plan. I think leaving Ronaldinho and Adriano off of this years squad is a clear statement. They are perceived as vestiges of the past, as great as they may have been (or may still be), not part of this new regime. Brazil has such a pool of talented young players they don't need the ego, the less hungry. They need top talent like Robinho, Kaka of course. But they also need role players. These are the stalwarts that are going to put the team on their back and carry them into the final. A bicicleta, etc. may get you a headline, a highlight clip for posterity, but if you allow the opponent to instantly march down the field and counter, what is the value?
Defend first and defend early. Who knows, maybe even get a lead in a game? If the US does that, they will know what it is like to have the upper hand instead of a mad scramble to bulge the net. They will know what it is like to control every aspect of a match. Then, and only then, will they compete with the world's top teams at a tournament of this level. Quarterfinals are nice, semis would be great, and the final would be a dream for the US team, one day. But in order to raise a trophy like the Copa Mundial, you have to be able to control, to manage a match. It's not only up to the players to do that.
You can't expect to get very far when you had the lead for 3 whole minutes the entire tournament. And the lineup changes? Ricardo Clark coughed up the ball in the midfield which led to the first Ghana goal. The Algeria game wasn't by any means the U.S. team playing to its full potential but they were threatening. So why all the tinkering? Maybe that's why the team is slow to start matches. Players that are used to playing together as a cohesive unit have the confidence in one another, and themselves to not make careless mistakes. And think of it from a player's perspective: if you start one match, then are benched the next, what message does that send? What does that do to your confidence?
The US team needs to wake up EARLY. They've conceded early in 8 of 22 matches dating back to the last World Cup. This puts immediate pressure on the offense to respond, and more on players like Tim Howard to not concede another goal. I don't think it is nerves, lack of experience, or injuries. It's lack of leadership and preparation. The U.S. team ran out of games where they could simply rely on their resilience. Top teams in the elimination stage will pounce on any and all opportunities, capitalize on them, then clamp down defensively and slam the door for good. You cannot afford consistent mistakes late in the tournament. Or it is four more years, more questions, more rebuilding. It was bound to happen eventually.
I do believe the US has the strikers (Altidore, Dempsey) and playmaker (Donovan) to put balls in the back of the net. But it only takes one to win a match. When the ball is in the attacking third these players have the speed and ability to create and finish. But when it comes to hanging with top European and South American teams, they simply cannot compete all over the field. The central midfielders need to stop pushing so far forward and make defending their priority. This is what it takes to win a World Cup. It takes toughness and tactics. Toughness all over the field, physical and mental. Look at the Italian side from the 2006 Cup. They did not win by out-attacking opponents. They won because of Fabio Cannavaro's organized defense and Buffon's brick-wall goalkeeping (also Materazzi's gamesmanship and Zidane's temper).
And this is not a player deficit. This is a lack of preparation. This is why it is so upsetting that the US wasn't able to tap Jurgen Klinsmann for national team coach after the Cup failure of 2006. His success at the 2006 cup and passion for scoring AND defending turned a decent side into one that should have made it into the final. The term "total football" is a little scary, like a nazi-era throwback to world domination, but it's true tactics for winning. You have to execute all over the field and cannot afford a lapse on any level. Mistakes happen in every game, but your system is there to prevent a breakdown. It is possible to play with passion, flair, a hunger for the goal and a tough, defensive system that is sure of itself. A coach like Klinsmann simply brings discipline, structure, and mental toughness. I think the US team has adequate skill. This is what they need to win.
Ask Dunga from Brazil. He has made it publicly clear that he is disposing of the "Joga Bonita" tag, the flash that has endeared fans to Brazil's style for so long. But style doesn't win competitions, substance does. He has said to the press that in order to compete with the top European teams the national team needs to change it's tactics, its plan. I think leaving Ronaldinho and Adriano off of this years squad is a clear statement. They are perceived as vestiges of the past, as great as they may have been (or may still be), not part of this new regime. Brazil has such a pool of talented young players they don't need the ego, the less hungry. They need top talent like Robinho, Kaka of course. But they also need role players. These are the stalwarts that are going to put the team on their back and carry them into the final. A bicicleta, etc. may get you a headline, a highlight clip for posterity, but if you allow the opponent to instantly march down the field and counter, what is the value?
Defend first and defend early. Who knows, maybe even get a lead in a game? If the US does that, they will know what it is like to have the upper hand instead of a mad scramble to bulge the net. They will know what it is like to control every aspect of a match. Then, and only then, will they compete with the world's top teams at a tournament of this level. Quarterfinals are nice, semis would be great, and the final would be a dream for the US team, one day. But in order to raise a trophy like the Copa Mundial, you have to be able to control, to manage a match. It's not only up to the players to do that.
Blue Dudes
The Cineplex isn't for me anymore.
I liked Avatar. It was a visual buffet, a unique movie going "experience", and sufficiently entertaining (I guess that's the point). But after spending $18 and struggling with my Buddy Holly RealD glasses for 3 hours, I felt a little… empty.
I haven't watched any behind the scenes footage or listened to James Cameron on the topic, but some have proclaimed: "this will change filmmaking forever." Technologically, yes. Maybe. It will give the studio with 400 mill. to spend on production and marketing a blueprint (no pun) for creating tent-pole action fantasy fare in 3D Imax. But I've seen great animation before. I've seen stunning video game graphics. And I've seen interesting storytelling. Avatar brings some of these elements together and (the 3D incarnation) creates almost a separate niche for itself. It lies somewhere in between the Mall and Disneyland Drive.
Who am I to rage against the 3D marvels (or try to save a few recession-bucks with 2D). So, I enjoyed the world of Pandora and the Na'vi in 3D. I didn't want people to think I was lame or old school. The creatures were something new, and the motion capture used to bring them to life was impressive. But the flora and fauna were so colorful and interesting I wanted to toss my glasses off and simply look at the full resolution, plain vanilla 2D image. When Jim C. could keep the camera still for 2 seconds you could see a crisp, layered 3D image with depth of field that looked like it could be "real". But as the camera swooshed around, I found that only one object was in true focus and the rest of the frame looked smashed together, a ghosted blur. Then I would close one eye. My eyes are doing are the damn work anyway. I guess that's why some of my friends complained of headaches and I saw an older asian woman walk out after about 10 minutes. It's just hard to look at for an extended period. And when objects thrust at you from the background: like the butt of a gun, an arrow, etc. it's not fooling anyone. It doesn't look real, and reeks of a technological whack off. Just because you can do it doesn't mean…. It's not a perfect technology by any means. My instincts were right. I think a 2D version will be more immersive. I will get a full rez, full contrast picture, not the polarized dimness the glasses create. I won't be constantly distracted by reflections in the glasses, hovering heads, and ghostly particles. I like the Haunted Mansion better.
I'm not going to get into Avatar being racist, (or that it's been called Dances with Wolves in 3D) or whatever. I don't think you go to this film for ground breaking story innovation. You go for the visuals and to be entertained. The rub of it is, when a studio (a corporate entity, with stockholders) is investing 400+ mill to shoot and market a film they don't want to experiment too much with the screenplay. It ceases to be an artful pursuit at that point. They want results. Also, on a global scale a white male is the most marketable "hero character". It's a business decision, bottom line. But, while I think the story had a tough road to innovation, it didn't need to be this predictable. Why regress into convention? The idea of the Avatar was similar to being "jacked in" (the Matrix), but still compelling enough. But why are the Na'vi helpless without the aid of a white man and a magical God to save them? Their world is far more bio-chemically advanced than Earth. Why can't they defend themselves with something more than a poison tipped arrow? And why does the penultimate scene have to boil down to a literal mano y mano fist fight between the earthen liberal and redneck conservative. Maybe a virtual fist fight, but a good vs. evil brawl nonetheless. The Colonel is not even the correct villain. It should have been Giovanni Ribisi's character. Oh yeah, the suits don't fight.
I felt like I was watching the end of Iron Man, or District 9, or…fill in the blank.
But film is for the masses.
I liked Avatar. It was a visual buffet, a unique movie going "experience", and sufficiently entertaining (I guess that's the point). But after spending $18 and struggling with my Buddy Holly RealD glasses for 3 hours, I felt a little… empty.
I haven't watched any behind the scenes footage or listened to James Cameron on the topic, but some have proclaimed: "this will change filmmaking forever." Technologically, yes. Maybe. It will give the studio with 400 mill. to spend on production and marketing a blueprint (no pun) for creating tent-pole action fantasy fare in 3D Imax. But I've seen great animation before. I've seen stunning video game graphics. And I've seen interesting storytelling. Avatar brings some of these elements together and (the 3D incarnation) creates almost a separate niche for itself. It lies somewhere in between the Mall and Disneyland Drive.
Who am I to rage against the 3D marvels (or try to save a few recession-bucks with 2D). So, I enjoyed the world of Pandora and the Na'vi in 3D. I didn't want people to think I was lame or old school. The creatures were something new, and the motion capture used to bring them to life was impressive. But the flora and fauna were so colorful and interesting I wanted to toss my glasses off and simply look at the full resolution, plain vanilla 2D image. When Jim C. could keep the camera still for 2 seconds you could see a crisp, layered 3D image with depth of field that looked like it could be "real". But as the camera swooshed around, I found that only one object was in true focus and the rest of the frame looked smashed together, a ghosted blur. Then I would close one eye. My eyes are doing are the damn work anyway. I guess that's why some of my friends complained of headaches and I saw an older asian woman walk out after about 10 minutes. It's just hard to look at for an extended period. And when objects thrust at you from the background: like the butt of a gun, an arrow, etc. it's not fooling anyone. It doesn't look real, and reeks of a technological whack off. Just because you can do it doesn't mean…. It's not a perfect technology by any means. My instincts were right. I think a 2D version will be more immersive. I will get a full rez, full contrast picture, not the polarized dimness the glasses create. I won't be constantly distracted by reflections in the glasses, hovering heads, and ghostly particles. I like the Haunted Mansion better.
I'm not going to get into Avatar being racist, (or that it's been called Dances with Wolves in 3D) or whatever. I don't think you go to this film for ground breaking story innovation. You go for the visuals and to be entertained. The rub of it is, when a studio (a corporate entity, with stockholders) is investing 400+ mill to shoot and market a film they don't want to experiment too much with the screenplay. It ceases to be an artful pursuit at that point. They want results. Also, on a global scale a white male is the most marketable "hero character". It's a business decision, bottom line. But, while I think the story had a tough road to innovation, it didn't need to be this predictable. Why regress into convention? The idea of the Avatar was similar to being "jacked in" (the Matrix), but still compelling enough. But why are the Na'vi helpless without the aid of a white man and a magical God to save them? Their world is far more bio-chemically advanced than Earth. Why can't they defend themselves with something more than a poison tipped arrow? And why does the penultimate scene have to boil down to a literal mano y mano fist fight between the earthen liberal and redneck conservative. Maybe a virtual fist fight, but a good vs. evil brawl nonetheless. The Colonel is not even the correct villain. It should have been Giovanni Ribisi's character. Oh yeah, the suits don't fight.
I felt like I was watching the end of Iron Man, or District 9, or…fill in the blank.
But film is for the masses.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)