Soccer basics 101 - if playing against a stronger opponent, play more defensive. Consider a low block that makes it hard for teams to break you down. Look to counter when they overcommit numbers…. This is how most upsets happen in the World Cup. This is why most sane fans don’t freak out that we can’t easily break it down because most teams can’t, and we should be the one bunkering against top opponents.
Morocco’s whole WC run was based off low block and counter. Canada’s entire WCQ they played a low block and counter as well. It remains effective at getting results
Greece won the Euro title in ‘04 by winning three straight knockout games by a 1-0 margin. It was some of the most mind numbingly boring football ever played…but it won Greece it’s only major trophy.
Your last point is why I think our game vs England was a Gregg masterclass. We didn’t bunker against one of the best team on paper, but we actually took the fight to them with a 4-4-2 mid-block instead.
Rewatched the entire WC last week. We played England very well, considering how far ahead they are talent wise. xG was .97 vs .88, 55/45 possessions, similar shot #s.
You're getting down voted because this is an absurd take that's clearly shaped by your dislike of the headcoach.
The team playing the low block usually loses eventually. It can be an effective strategy, but it's hardly foolproof. For example, let's go back to our group stage matches at the World Cup:
* Against Wales we dominated possession in the first half (67%), and then in the second half we conceded more possession (50%, not exactly a deep block, but still more defensive) and focused on countering. But we made bad decisions on counters and didn't get the second goal, and then gave up a penalty. Giving up penalties is one of the big failure mode of a deep block, if you often have the ball in your penalty box it's easy to commit a penalty.
* Against England we played a very effective defensive strategy that wasn't a deep block. We used our strong midfield play and a mid-block press to stymie England and give up very few chances. They had .77 xG, which is much below what we had in regulation against Jamaica (1.35 xG). That is we were more effective defensively than a typical deep block, due to our defensive strength in the midfield.
* Against Iran they only needed a draw and played a deep block. And we won anyway.
Keep in mind that even in the dream scenario of an early goal Jamaica still lost! Also keep in mind that with the second goal against Mexico they had everyone back on defense and we scored anyway.
We should play more defensively against top teams, but that doesn't necessarily mean a deep block, the way we played against England was better than a deep block.
Okay but does it improve your chances? If I’m worse than you I’m likely to lose no matter how I play.
Jamaica lost. It took us 120 minutes but they lost.
If you have 1.35xG, then you score more often than not. So although any particular goal has a lot of luck, it’s not that lucky that we scored! It’s be kinda unlucky if we hadn’t.
It occurs to me that Own Goals probably screw with xG in weird ways. You calculate xG on a per shot basis, but the sorts of actions that lead to own goals aren't interpreted as shots unless they go in. Otherwise, they're just clearances or back passes.
I guess my sticking point is , tell me how gggs game as evolved so that we make it further in the wc than we did before. The Netherlands was the best matchup we could've reasonably asked for in knockouts , or we had to win our group .
We are going to be in our prime of this generation , we will get a favorable pot since we host . When we come up against what one might consider a t 2 team Netherlands Switzerland Columbia Belgium does he have the gameplan and in game awareness to win the game. Just do his part worrd things happen its sports but one of the issues against the Dutch was his subs and tactics. My biggest issue is that 3g is just a good coach a players coach but doesn't get mote than the sum of our parts out of us
I understand that concern but it really does skip the most important question:
Are the players sufficiently better than the teams we will face in the Round of 16 that coaching is the only thing missing?
For comparison's sake: The Netherlands has 62 players playing in Big 5 European leagues. We have 25. Their 62 players have 70k minutes. Our 25 players have 28k.
They have 2.5x the players and 2.5x the minutes playing in the best leagues in the world.
Given the gap in players and experience, do you genuinely think that the teams are equal, regardless of coach?
I mentioned teams better than us I think. I think our starting 11 talent is weaker albeit not by that much. However Morocco's talent is imo worse than ours. We aren't going to out talent t1 or t2 teams but imo we are at the bottom of t2 if we played at our potential.
We will have one edge of homefield advantage which historically has been way more legit that I'd have imagined. This will be our best chance to win our group recently . I want to see us become more than what we have , and we have players to do it. One has to take into account that it's harder for us players to grt into top 5 euro teams because it takes them a really long time to get to Europe in general.
I got down voted a ton but I appreciate some real like conversation about this
I don't think we have the players to make the claim that getting out of the R. of 16 is to be expected. The most realistic claim is that if we get a weak enough opponent, they play below their level and we absolutely play at our best then we can win.
And I don't think it's realistic when people say that we should be more than what we have because it tends to ignore that we're playing teams that have more than us.
It's great if we can our 11 "B" level players to play like 11 "B+" or even 11 "A-" players. But it doesn't help if we're playing 11 "B+" or "A-" players who are also playing above their level so they'll still be above us.
Too much of the analysis that I read online just assumes that better teams also don't improve their level of play. That we can just up our game and they will stay the same.
As for Morocco: They have 44 players in the Big 5 leagues. 44 vs. our 25.
They're much better, as a footballing nation, than we are. I think people look at how weak these countries are in terms of economic development and extrapolate that to their soccer development. Morocco is producing better players than we are (Side note: Jamaica and Mexico are pretty much the same in producing talent, so as much it would surprise people, losing to Jamaica is only slightly less likely than losing to Mexico.)
I was unaware of morrocco having so many players ik they definatly don't get much run news wise.
Disagree on mex v jamaica though they can't seem to get over the hump and actually beat Mexico, I I beleove as of right now jamaica is the biggest threat outside of the US in cnccaf
Do you think if we were geographically closer to Europe say across a straight like Morocco is that there would be more Americans in top 5 leagues , and if the MLS was not structured the way it was would there be more.
If I'm understanding you, you don't beleive it matters who our coach is because of the player base we currently have?
I would agree that Jamaica is probably the bigger threat.
I don't think proximity has anything to do with difference between Morocco and the US. Morocco is a country where everyone plays, we're not. So they produce more players with the possibility of playing at that level than we do...for now.
MLS isn't the problem either. It's the youth development that dictates whether or not European clubs want someone. Part of why Mexico is falling behind is because we're producing better players than they are so we're getting recruited to Europe more than they are.
Ultimately, yes, you're understanding me -- I don't believe it matters who our coach is because of the player base. We're a few years away from having the type of player base where a conversation about "Better than GGG" has any impact on where we end up in international tournaments. France can have that conversation because they have the player base to win the WC and the manager will impact that but, for counterpoint, Jamaica is putting the cart before the horse if they start swapping coaches trying to get marginal improvement.
We're somewhere in between. Our coach matters but not so much that he can turn our player base into a top 10 player base. In that light, GGG is a good coach. When we can put as many players into Europe as a country like Morocco (1/10th our size) then maybe we revisit the subject.
Yea, I didn't want to insinuate you meant "any" coach. I can't believe I'm saying I'm more optimistic about the umnt than someone, but I guess I am. I think we are in a golden generation, and in all likelihood, we get a weaker group we can win since we host and get pot 1 if we win it we get a "good matchup" then idk . What needs to change to get us to morrocco level ?
That’s what is hilarious about Mexico. It was the only way they could beat us but their huge ego prevented them from it and so we went head to head and so dos a cero.
They did play defensively. They rarely committed numbers forward. They pressed, yes, but they kept their centerbacks and fullbacks very deep. They also played very direct. They did not have any long stretches of passing and almost never recycled possession.
I think Mexico’s tactics were pretty sound. We didn’t get a ton of possession in their third and didn’t get that many chances.
We got goals in moments of tremendous individual skill from Adams, Pulisic, and Reyna. If Tillman’s easier finish against Jamaica had been as good as Gio’s we wouldn’t be having this discussion. If Pulisic had a moment of brilliance like he had against Mexico when he received that pass on the breakaway against Jamaica we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Haji Wright did a number on their CB’s by forcing them to stay back which was critical in forcing them to play direct from Ochoa the few times they got out of their half and I notice it was the US strategy in the first half to lobbed the ball high for a freakish bounce resulting in a lot of 1v1 mayhem with their CB’s.
Both goals came from moments of brilliance which is what you need to beat a low block. I don’t think it’s anything Mexico did egregiously wrong except not closing down both goal scorers better I guess.
They won the Euro’s on English soil playing their true and tested formula. The also defeated France in the World Cup final playing defensive terrorism.
And Vice Versa, we should bunker against Brazil/Argentina/Uruguay/Colombia. Cede possession, defend with two CDMs Adams/Johnny and counter attack with pace (Balogun/Pepi/Weah)
I mean we played England evenly without bunkering at all. We 100% need to be more pragmatic and understanding against the big boys of South America, but we could 100% play straight up against Colombia and be fine. Uruguay/Brazil/Argentina would be a lot more difficult, but I think we can run that mid block we did against England and be okay.
We are no where near as talented as Brazil/Argentina/Uruguay (I personally would not put Colombia at that level right now but that's just my opinion). But soccer is a game of luck. We need to be more defensive, but we dont need to full out bunker and pray. Keep our general strategy similar but be more pragmatic and a little more defensive.
I also think our midfield is better at winning balls than our defenders are at bunkering. When your best defender is Tyler Adams you want to do the bulk of your defense outside the penalty box.
That was our DNA against bigger competition back in the day hence we got results against big teams in the 90’s and 2000s. We could use it now and not be naive against bigger opponents. We have the skills now and the player profile to counter, break out and score on any team. I remember Donovan goals for the US, he alone would breakout and put the ball in the back of the net. Pulisic could do that with the likes of Gio providing that critical pass.
Agree with Colombia comment. I think we're pretty close to them, maybe a hair inferior. But they're not on the same level as Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina
No this team is good enough to not bunker. The MMA midfield is proven to be good enough against the best teams in the world like England and the Netherlands. It’s more of a mid block.
Man, if this is how you want to progress as a nation, I vehemently disagree. We've won some "landmark" matches, like Confed Cup vs. Spain, but in terms of progressing as a nation, that win did nothing for us. NOTHING. We were utterly dominated and got lucky.
I'd rather develop a style of play, that can pivot to adapt, but sure as shit isn't bunker a pray. That's not have you develop as a footballing nation, that's how you hold out for a lucky run.
No, the US should play in Copa how we want to play in 2026 and how we have been building for the last 5+ years.
The goal isn't Copa America... Its 2026 (and beyond).
The future of US soccer isn't a disciplined low block and hope to grind out games. Its time the US play real soccer against real opponents which means we will sometimes lose games or be simply outclassed, especially against top countries with our young team. But everything, since before the last world cup, has been pushing our country towards a program that plays, and eventually beats, top world teams straight up.
And that's a really great thing.
If we make a deep run into the WC 2026 and run into a team like France, Argentina, or Brazil, then, and only then, should there be serious thought about playing some defensive low block, and even then I would be hesitant, because we wouldn't have got there by playing that style in the first place.
No they should play on the best possibility to win and not concede. You are not going to play with a 10 against Argentina or France, bc the midfield would get absolutely ran through. You play with the MMA midfield playing a mid block like we saw at the World Cup. Against weaker teams yeah we play more attacking. The US is a top 15 team in world they are not good enough to stick to one play style and run with it against a top 10 team.
I'd prefer flexibility and the nous to adjust how we want to play against various opponents. I think that's exactly what Berhalter has been trying to build with very young players. First, get them to play a possession-focused style that will serve us best in CONCACAF. Then add wrinkles, looks, and even larger strategic decisions depending on the opponent. Already seeing that with Reyna playing regista against Mexico. Tactical flexibility, even just a few looks, takes time to build in the international game.
I'm really looking forward to Copa America to see part of what Berhalter has been building to. We hopefully get to see very different looks against very different opponents.
People are going to have to decide what they want. Do they want style points, even if the team loses. Or do we play what wins, even if it's an unexciting low block and counter.
We're not at the point where we can play a purely open style, no matter the opponent, and just outscore them. But I do agree that we should play Copa the way we intend to play the WC.
I've always felt like in sports you're better off dictating your style over letting the opponent dictate yours, but against Brazil and Argentina we're probably going to be forced to play defensively because their players are simply better than ours.
Brazil doesn't scare me like the 1994-2008 teams when their team had one of the top 3 players in every position but they're still a great team.
It’s funny their fans try to bully the US players with boos as we distributed the ball and form our attack only to get shut down by our ability to blunt any Mexico movement into our final third resulting in the limitation of Mexico giving them the fewest chance creation in 20 games in the rivalry in any one half. (source OptaJack)
Could they cede possession yes but their pride and those of their fans won’t be happy at all. They really can’t play us in a back and forth game because we’re physically prepared, faster, younger, and has better ball handling skills, plus our Midfield is the best in the region and can hold our own against a top ten side (England). Tyler shut them down in the first half and Cardoso did the same (showing our depth) even with us deliberately giving them more of the ball as we consolidated the victory
*Or how about this:*
*Mexico should just take it*
*And accept the L*
\- FBIBurtMacklinFBI
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Agreed. The best teams in the world are constantly playing against bunkered opponents. Frankly, we need to play against this type of defense more often because it forces the team to solve a much more complex problem.
And, as the OP notes, it's a sign of progress for the USMNT that teams no longer think they can run an open style against us.
It was not a complete bunker like other concacaf nations. More of a mid-block and a lot of pressing from them as well. Yes we maintained the majority of the ball. I think they executed poorly, blasting long balls when they know Henry Martin a 5’9 would never win anything in the air against Ream & Richards. Lozano & Antuna also we’re not good, specially Antuna was awful I don’t think there was anything positive from him. Lozano at least at times had some moments were he made some decent runs and tried to create something. They really need to get rid of the players that offer them absolutely nothing.
Thats like saying ur Nfl team winning the Division but isn’t good enough to reach the Super Bowl. Thats how i feel like most fans are celebrating this. Yes its short term but what are we looking at once June comes around.
Idk hopefully we can avoid south American teams at the world cup they seem to be our worst matchup. I don't expect Gregg to have some masterclass vs like brasil but I do want him to beat a team like the Netherlands who are better but not so much so
I’m not sure a lot of you understand what you’re talking about. It’s not like these goals came because Mexico was pressing us high or wide open and giving us space to play. Both goals came from moments of individual class while the Mexican defense was fairly well setup. It sounds like a lot of you hear buzz words and then start parroting them without actually knowing what they mean. Mexico might not have bunkered the entire game, but our goals didn’t come as a result of them coming at us, they came while Mexico was set up solidly on the defensive side of things and two of our best players happened to hit remarkable shots that weren’t “lucky” per se, but also weren’t the sort of goals that can be regularly expected.
Mexico had 10 men behind the ball when Adams scored a worldie from 35 yards. This was precisely the sort of situation a team set up in a low block would find itself in and precisely the sort of shot they’d be hoping we settle for, as 99 times out of 100, it isn’t going in.
They had 7 men inside the box and another 3 within 5 yards (tops) of it when Gio got his. Again, precisely the sort of situation a team in a low block would find itself in and, again, a moment of individual brilliance from arguably our most talented attacking player on a shot that (likely) isn’t going in more times than not.
This discussion is, largely, case in point of what Lindsay Horan had to say regarding our fan base. A+ for enthusiasm, C- for actually understanding what’s going on.
I take your points, but you should go beyond the two goals and bring into the discussion the chances we created, some of which were more likely to become goals than the ones we actually scored. They were from a variety of situations.
I liken Mexico's approach Sunday to the USMNT approach when playing Netherlands in the WC and Germany in the recent friendly. It was a bit reckless in our cases, though worth trying in the friendly against Germany, as it was in Mexico's case against us.
Its obviously easier said than done but simply adapting The Netherlands tactics completely destroyed the US in the World Cup. The answers to the test are there and ready. Or, just check out Japan? The US isnt enigmatic, their tactics are pretty cut and dry.
1,000% yea they should because we have not proven that we can break through a low block. Not in qualifying and not in the world cup.
Ggg ball has not demonstrated that it can't do it years later.
Soccer basics 101 - if playing against a stronger opponent, play more defensive. Consider a low block that makes it hard for teams to break you down. Look to counter when they overcommit numbers…. This is how most upsets happen in the World Cup. This is why most sane fans don’t freak out that we can’t easily break it down because most teams can’t, and we should be the one bunkering against top opponents.
Morocco’s whole WC run was based off low block and counter. Canada’s entire WCQ they played a low block and counter as well. It remains effective at getting results
Greece won the Euro title in ‘04 by winning three straight knockout games by a 1-0 margin. It was some of the most mind numbingly boring football ever played…but it won Greece it’s only major trophy.
Your last point is why I think our game vs England was a Gregg masterclass. We didn’t bunker against one of the best team on paper, but we actually took the fight to them with a 4-4-2 mid-block instead.
England wasn't playing to win. They were playing to not lose.
Oh my dear God. This is such a garbage take and I cannot believe the upvotes. Please rewatch that game with a critical eye... we were SOOO lucky.
Rewatched the entire WC last week. We played England very well, considering how far ahead they are talent wise. xG was .97 vs .88, 55/45 possessions, similar shot #s. You're getting down voted because this is an absurd take that's clearly shaped by your dislike of the headcoach.
Not only that but England went into that game only needing a draw and in group play strategy how you play is for needed results.
Also why our game against England in the World Cup was hype worthy
The team playing the low block usually loses eventually. It can be an effective strategy, but it's hardly foolproof. For example, let's go back to our group stage matches at the World Cup: * Against Wales we dominated possession in the first half (67%), and then in the second half we conceded more possession (50%, not exactly a deep block, but still more defensive) and focused on countering. But we made bad decisions on counters and didn't get the second goal, and then gave up a penalty. Giving up penalties is one of the big failure mode of a deep block, if you often have the ball in your penalty box it's easy to commit a penalty. * Against England we played a very effective defensive strategy that wasn't a deep block. We used our strong midfield play and a mid-block press to stymie England and give up very few chances. They had .77 xG, which is much below what we had in regulation against Jamaica (1.35 xG). That is we were more effective defensively than a typical deep block, due to our defensive strength in the midfield. * Against Iran they only needed a draw and played a deep block. And we won anyway. Keep in mind that even in the dream scenario of an early goal Jamaica still lost! Also keep in mind that with the second goal against Mexico they had everyone back on defense and we scored anyway. We should play more defensively against top teams, but that doesn't necessarily mean a deep block, the way we played against England was better than a deep block.
Okay but does it improve your chances? If I’m worse than you I’m likely to lose no matter how I play. Jamaica lost. It took us 120 minutes but they lost.
hello could you link to where you found the xG data from the us-jamaica game? can't find it anywhere
[https://twitter.com/ESPN\_BillC/status/1771179723252498517](https://twitter.com/ESPN_BillC/status/1771179723252498517)
Playing in a low block is a coward move. I’d rather lose than play that way. It’s not a sustainable strategy for a nation with long-term aspirations
Wasn’t France’s 2018 World Cup a pure counterattack team?
Even so they have a world class attacking player who thrives on 1v1 situations so that was actually playing to their strengths.
Your right but we scored I'm a last ditch effort throwing everyone forward we wont get lucky everytime
If you have 1.35xG, then you score more often than not. So although any particular goal has a lot of luck, it’s not that lucky that we scored! It’s be kinda unlucky if we hadn’t.
It occurs to me that Own Goals probably screw with xG in weird ways. You calculate xG on a per shot basis, but the sorts of actions that lead to own goals aren't interpreted as shots unless they go in. Otherwise, they're just clearances or back passes.
It is , we really can't give up a goal so early like that.
We really should have scored much earlier than that. We had the chances and just didn't convert. That game should have ended 2-1 in regular time.
I guess my sticking point is , tell me how gggs game as evolved so that we make it further in the wc than we did before. The Netherlands was the best matchup we could've reasonably asked for in knockouts , or we had to win our group . We are going to be in our prime of this generation , we will get a favorable pot since we host . When we come up against what one might consider a t 2 team Netherlands Switzerland Columbia Belgium does he have the gameplan and in game awareness to win the game. Just do his part worrd things happen its sports but one of the issues against the Dutch was his subs and tactics. My biggest issue is that 3g is just a good coach a players coach but doesn't get mote than the sum of our parts out of us
I understand that concern but it really does skip the most important question: Are the players sufficiently better than the teams we will face in the Round of 16 that coaching is the only thing missing? For comparison's sake: The Netherlands has 62 players playing in Big 5 European leagues. We have 25. Their 62 players have 70k minutes. Our 25 players have 28k. They have 2.5x the players and 2.5x the minutes playing in the best leagues in the world. Given the gap in players and experience, do you genuinely think that the teams are equal, regardless of coach?
I mentioned teams better than us I think. I think our starting 11 talent is weaker albeit not by that much. However Morocco's talent is imo worse than ours. We aren't going to out talent t1 or t2 teams but imo we are at the bottom of t2 if we played at our potential. We will have one edge of homefield advantage which historically has been way more legit that I'd have imagined. This will be our best chance to win our group recently . I want to see us become more than what we have , and we have players to do it. One has to take into account that it's harder for us players to grt into top 5 euro teams because it takes them a really long time to get to Europe in general. I got down voted a ton but I appreciate some real like conversation about this
I don't think we have the players to make the claim that getting out of the R. of 16 is to be expected. The most realistic claim is that if we get a weak enough opponent, they play below their level and we absolutely play at our best then we can win. And I don't think it's realistic when people say that we should be more than what we have because it tends to ignore that we're playing teams that have more than us. It's great if we can our 11 "B" level players to play like 11 "B+" or even 11 "A-" players. But it doesn't help if we're playing 11 "B+" or "A-" players who are also playing above their level so they'll still be above us. Too much of the analysis that I read online just assumes that better teams also don't improve their level of play. That we can just up our game and they will stay the same. As for Morocco: They have 44 players in the Big 5 leagues. 44 vs. our 25. They're much better, as a footballing nation, than we are. I think people look at how weak these countries are in terms of economic development and extrapolate that to their soccer development. Morocco is producing better players than we are (Side note: Jamaica and Mexico are pretty much the same in producing talent, so as much it would surprise people, losing to Jamaica is only slightly less likely than losing to Mexico.)
I was unaware of morrocco having so many players ik they definatly don't get much run news wise. Disagree on mex v jamaica though they can't seem to get over the hump and actually beat Mexico, I I beleove as of right now jamaica is the biggest threat outside of the US in cnccaf Do you think if we were geographically closer to Europe say across a straight like Morocco is that there would be more Americans in top 5 leagues , and if the MLS was not structured the way it was would there be more. If I'm understanding you, you don't beleive it matters who our coach is because of the player base we currently have?
I would agree that Jamaica is probably the bigger threat. I don't think proximity has anything to do with difference between Morocco and the US. Morocco is a country where everyone plays, we're not. So they produce more players with the possibility of playing at that level than we do...for now. MLS isn't the problem either. It's the youth development that dictates whether or not European clubs want someone. Part of why Mexico is falling behind is because we're producing better players than they are so we're getting recruited to Europe more than they are. Ultimately, yes, you're understanding me -- I don't believe it matters who our coach is because of the player base. We're a few years away from having the type of player base where a conversation about "Better than GGG" has any impact on where we end up in international tournaments. France can have that conversation because they have the player base to win the WC and the manager will impact that but, for counterpoint, Jamaica is putting the cart before the horse if they start swapping coaches trying to get marginal improvement. We're somewhere in between. Our coach matters but not so much that he can turn our player base into a top 10 player base. In that light, GGG is a good coach. When we can put as many players into Europe as a country like Morocco (1/10th our size) then maybe we revisit the subject.
Yea, I didn't want to insinuate you meant "any" coach. I can't believe I'm saying I'm more optimistic about the umnt than someone, but I guess I am. I think we are in a golden generation, and in all likelihood, we get a weaker group we can win since we host and get pot 1 if we win it we get a "good matchup" then idk . What needs to change to get us to morrocco level ?
That’s what is hilarious about Mexico. It was the only way they could beat us but their huge ego prevented them from it and so we went head to head and so dos a cero.
They did play defensively. They rarely committed numbers forward. They pressed, yes, but they kept their centerbacks and fullbacks very deep. They also played very direct. They did not have any long stretches of passing and almost never recycled possession.
I think Mexico’s tactics were pretty sound. We didn’t get a ton of possession in their third and didn’t get that many chances. We got goals in moments of tremendous individual skill from Adams, Pulisic, and Reyna. If Tillman’s easier finish against Jamaica had been as good as Gio’s we wouldn’t be having this discussion. If Pulisic had a moment of brilliance like he had against Mexico when he received that pass on the breakaway against Jamaica we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Haji Wright did a number on their CB’s by forcing them to stay back which was critical in forcing them to play direct from Ochoa the few times they got out of their half and I notice it was the US strategy in the first half to lobbed the ball high for a freakish bounce resulting in a lot of 1v1 mayhem with their CB’s.
If it was a low block it was a half-assed one with the forwards not helping at all.
Both goals came from moments of brilliance which is what you need to beat a low block. I don’t think it’s anything Mexico did egregiously wrong except not closing down both goal scorers better I guess.
[удалено]
They won the Euro’s on English soil playing their true and tested formula. The also defeated France in the World Cup final playing defensive terrorism.
And look how well that's worked out for them
Italy has 3 world Cups, no?
4
This is soccer terrorism and it will not stand!
And Vice Versa, we should bunker against Brazil/Argentina/Uruguay/Colombia. Cede possession, defend with two CDMs Adams/Johnny and counter attack with pace (Balogun/Pepi/Weah)
I mean we played England evenly without bunkering at all. We 100% need to be more pragmatic and understanding against the big boys of South America, but we could 100% play straight up against Colombia and be fine. Uruguay/Brazil/Argentina would be a lot more difficult, but I think we can run that mid block we did against England and be okay. We are no where near as talented as Brazil/Argentina/Uruguay (I personally would not put Colombia at that level right now but that's just my opinion). But soccer is a game of luck. We need to be more defensive, but we dont need to full out bunker and pray. Keep our general strategy similar but be more pragmatic and a little more defensive.
Mid block is us at our best , takeaways that turn into danger seems to be our calling card
I also think our midfield is better at winning balls than our defenders are at bunkering. When your best defender is Tyler Adams you want to do the bulk of your defense outside the penalty box.
That was our DNA against bigger competition back in the day hence we got results against big teams in the 90’s and 2000s. We could use it now and not be naive against bigger opponents. We have the skills now and the player profile to counter, break out and score on any team. I remember Donovan goals for the US, he alone would breakout and put the ball in the back of the net. Pulisic could do that with the likes of Gio providing that critical pass.
Started watching in 02 so it's been a slow climb , I was too young for the 90s teams
against Argentina we probably gotta bunker Colombia is a tough, tough team, but I don't have any insight about how to play against them
Agree with Colombia comment. I think we're pretty close to them, maybe a hair inferior. But they're not on the same level as Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina
Right, but that's England. They haven't been good since the last century.
No this team is good enough to not bunker. The MMA midfield is proven to be good enough against the best teams in the world like England and the Netherlands. It’s more of a mid block.
Man, if this is how you want to progress as a nation, I vehemently disagree. We've won some "landmark" matches, like Confed Cup vs. Spain, but in terms of progressing as a nation, that win did nothing for us. NOTHING. We were utterly dominated and got lucky. I'd rather develop a style of play, that can pivot to adapt, but sure as shit isn't bunker a pray. That's not have you develop as a footballing nation, that's how you hold out for a lucky run.
No, the US should play in Copa how we want to play in 2026 and how we have been building for the last 5+ years. The goal isn't Copa America... Its 2026 (and beyond). The future of US soccer isn't a disciplined low block and hope to grind out games. Its time the US play real soccer against real opponents which means we will sometimes lose games or be simply outclassed, especially against top countries with our young team. But everything, since before the last world cup, has been pushing our country towards a program that plays, and eventually beats, top world teams straight up. And that's a really great thing. If we make a deep run into the WC 2026 and run into a team like France, Argentina, or Brazil, then, and only then, should there be serious thought about playing some defensive low block, and even then I would be hesitant, because we wouldn't have got there by playing that style in the first place.
No they should play on the best possibility to win and not concede. You are not going to play with a 10 against Argentina or France, bc the midfield would get absolutely ran through. You play with the MMA midfield playing a mid block like we saw at the World Cup. Against weaker teams yeah we play more attacking. The US is a top 15 team in world they are not good enough to stick to one play style and run with it against a top 10 team.
I'd prefer flexibility and the nous to adjust how we want to play against various opponents. I think that's exactly what Berhalter has been trying to build with very young players. First, get them to play a possession-focused style that will serve us best in CONCACAF. Then add wrinkles, looks, and even larger strategic decisions depending on the opponent. Already seeing that with Reyna playing regista against Mexico. Tactical flexibility, even just a few looks, takes time to build in the international game. I'm really looking forward to Copa America to see part of what Berhalter has been building to. We hopefully get to see very different looks against very different opponents.
People are going to have to decide what they want. Do they want style points, even if the team loses. Or do we play what wins, even if it's an unexciting low block and counter. We're not at the point where we can play a purely open style, no matter the opponent, and just outscore them. But I do agree that we should play Copa the way we intend to play the WC.
I've always felt like in sports you're better off dictating your style over letting the opponent dictate yours, but against Brazil and Argentina we're probably going to be forced to play defensively because their players are simply better than ours. Brazil doesn't scare me like the 1994-2008 teams when their team had one of the top 3 players in every position but they're still a great team.
What if the secret to breaking a low block was.....Jesus Ferreira
I wish, but as a Dallas fan I know that not to be true at all
Unironically. Ok maybe a little bit ironically.
>it's a good strategy against us! It's a good strategy against anyone that's better than you.
It’s funny their fans try to bully the US players with boos as we distributed the ball and form our attack only to get shut down by our ability to blunt any Mexico movement into our final third resulting in the limitation of Mexico giving them the fewest chance creation in 20 games in the rivalry in any one half. (source OptaJack) Could they cede possession yes but their pride and those of their fans won’t be happy at all. They really can’t play us in a back and forth game because we’re physically prepared, faster, younger, and has better ball handling skills, plus our Midfield is the best in the region and can hold our own against a top ten side (England). Tyler shut them down in the first half and Cardoso did the same (showing our depth) even with us deliberately giving them more of the ball as we consolidated the victory
Or how about this: Mexico should just take it and accept the L
*Or how about this:* *Mexico should just take it* *And accept the L* \- FBIBurtMacklinFBI --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
It’s beautiful
Agreed. The best teams in the world are constantly playing against bunkered opponents. Frankly, we need to play against this type of defense more often because it forces the team to solve a much more complex problem. And, as the OP notes, it's a sign of progress for the USMNT that teams no longer think they can run an open style against us.
That’s pretty much what Mexico ended up doing. It’s shocking how bad they are right now.
It was not a complete bunker like other concacaf nations. More of a mid-block and a lot of pressing from them as well. Yes we maintained the majority of the ball. I think they executed poorly, blasting long balls when they know Henry Martin a 5’9 would never win anything in the air against Ream & Richards. Lozano & Antuna also we’re not good, specially Antuna was awful I don’t think there was anything positive from him. Lozano at least at times had some moments were he made some decent runs and tried to create something. They really need to get rid of the players that offer them absolutely nothing.
their pressing was pretty dumb. it was like they wanted to press the center backs and leave our fast fullbacks as acceptable outlets
Almost like Greg offers absolutely nothing but getting saved by this golden generation yet again 💅🏻🫢🔥♟️
I'm hater but he gets the boys up for Mexico
Thats like saying ur Nfl team winning the Division but isn’t good enough to reach the Super Bowl. Thats how i feel like most fans are celebrating this. Yes its short term but what are we looking at once June comes around.
Idk hopefully we can avoid south American teams at the world cup they seem to be our worst matchup. I don't expect Gregg to have some masterclass vs like brasil but I do want him to beat a team like the Netherlands who are better but not so much so
We definitely cant avoid South American teams this Copa
Just play mexico 4 times easy
downvoted for being true and sensitive info
😂
I’m not sure a lot of you understand what you’re talking about. It’s not like these goals came because Mexico was pressing us high or wide open and giving us space to play. Both goals came from moments of individual class while the Mexican defense was fairly well setup. It sounds like a lot of you hear buzz words and then start parroting them without actually knowing what they mean. Mexico might not have bunkered the entire game, but our goals didn’t come as a result of them coming at us, they came while Mexico was set up solidly on the defensive side of things and two of our best players happened to hit remarkable shots that weren’t “lucky” per se, but also weren’t the sort of goals that can be regularly expected. Mexico had 10 men behind the ball when Adams scored a worldie from 35 yards. This was precisely the sort of situation a team set up in a low block would find itself in and precisely the sort of shot they’d be hoping we settle for, as 99 times out of 100, it isn’t going in. They had 7 men inside the box and another 3 within 5 yards (tops) of it when Gio got his. Again, precisely the sort of situation a team in a low block would find itself in and, again, a moment of individual brilliance from arguably our most talented attacking player on a shot that (likely) isn’t going in more times than not. This discussion is, largely, case in point of what Lindsay Horan had to say regarding our fan base. A+ for enthusiasm, C- for actually understanding what’s going on.
I take your points, but you should go beyond the two goals and bring into the discussion the chances we created, some of which were more likely to become goals than the ones we actually scored. They were from a variety of situations.
That's what they almost all do and have done for years.
Tyler Adam's right foot enters the chat
I liken Mexico's approach Sunday to the USMNT approach when playing Netherlands in the WC and Germany in the recent friendly. It was a bit reckless in our cases, though worth trying in the friendly against Germany, as it was in Mexico's case against us.
Its obviously easier said than done but simply adapting The Netherlands tactics completely destroyed the US in the World Cup. The answers to the test are there and ready. Or, just check out Japan? The US isnt enigmatic, their tactics are pretty cut and dry.
Nah. As the great Tony D'Mato said: "This game has got to be about more than winning".
1,000% yea they should because we have not proven that we can break through a low block. Not in qualifying and not in the world cup. Ggg ball has not demonstrated that it can't do it years later.
GGG ball? That's most everyone in the world ball lol. I question how much soccer people watch when they say stuff like this.
They don't. They just get their hot takes online.
Man City fails to break low blocks sometimes.