USA v ENGLAND

fellowfootballmate wrote:

Anyone who thinks USA will win doesn't know anything about football.

Actually that is the reversal of reality. The reality is England is always loaded with talent and come up short. They are down Beckham and Ferdinand and relay heavily on Rooney.

I'm not saying England won't win, but it's pretty stupid to say that the US can't.

That said, I fear coach Bradley will lean towards veterans too heavily while his real weapons are newcomers.

Torres should start!!!!!! He has the most pure skill of any of the US midfielders (not counting Donovan and Dempsey as midfielders). He put on a clinic in the second half of that Turkey game; his passing was worthy of a spot on the Spain squad! Let Bradley play the holding role and allow Torres to run the attack. Unfortunately, I would be shocked if Bob Bradley doesn't start Clark instead.

I should add, I hope they don't sit Altidore out there too long if he can't score because England defenders are familiar with him and probably confident against him. Throwing our young guns out there is the way to shake them up and keep them guessing.

Can someone please enlighten me why UK is allowed to field more than 1 team in the World Cup?

I thought UK is the unitary country that presents England, Soctland, Wales, and N. Ireland a whole as a single country politically; so why are they allowed to field more than one team from its constituents? It is tantamount to fielding 50 teams by the US.

England have much more class, but the US will be much trickier than the average England supporter thinks. This is not the same US team that was spanked 2-0 at Wembley in 2008...

wvrunner3200 wrote:

Torres should start!!!!!! He has the most pure skill of any of the US midfielders (not counting Donovan and Dempsey as midfielders). He put on a clinic in the second half of that Turkey game; his passing was worthy of a spot on the Spain squad! Let Bradley play the holding role and allow Torres to run the attack. Unfortunately, I would be shocked if Bob Bradley doesn't start Clark instead.

That is kind of what I'm thinking, but listening to the commentary by the US soccer heads there is absolutely no mention of him. It also seams like so many times in the past our team gets stuck in this rut of playing conservatively with veterans and the coaches make no change to bring on a sparkplug when we have one on the bench.

We sit there and pass around and maybe even control possession while nobody does anything creative and we have not great chances to score. I just hope we don't have to see that against England. It's one thing to lose when you've played well and taken chances, it's another to lose when you didn't take the chances.

A lot of players are very different on their international teams vs their club teams for numerous reasons. Some much better, some much worse.

The US seems to up their level as a whole, England does the reverse. This brings them closer and makes it interesting for sure.

Those are the same talking heads that criticize Dempsey for being lazy when all he does is score big goals. Torres is much more respected by British analysts. I totally agree about the typical wasted possession style the US typically plays. Against lesser competition, they can maintain possession but usually have trouble doing anything dangerous with it. And when they play someone tough, it's usually bad pass after bad pass. The Torres-Bradley midfield combo from the Turkey game was a revelation. Bradley is class, but when paired with Clark they cannot control the game the way a good central midfield pairing have to at this level.

Bradley and Torres together can.

England has the best league with the premier league. Not this season (where Germany is best) but most of the times they are.

But this is not because English players are the best. It's because they have the most money and buy the best players from all over the world. The Premier League is no indication for how good their national team is. They won the WC just once and only because of home field advantage.

Bradley is switching up his whole strategy and making players play different positions, plus the USA's top defender Onyewu isn't 100% (he isn't that good anyways), while England has and will always be a football juggernaut. It's seen as their national sport (although officially it isn't), and are passionate about it. I'm not saying USA's team isn't passionate, but I am saying that England has the support of a whole nation and have a great national sense of pride. They will not allow themselves to lose to a nation who doesn't give a crap about football. I guess we'll see who is right in 2 days. Here's a quick fact for you, USA hasn't beaten England in a match since 1993.

fellowfootballmate wrote:

Here's a quick fact for you, USA hasn't beaten England in a match since 1993.

Not that I think these stats mean anything because the players and coaches change fairly frequently on nationals teams, but when did England last beat Spain? When did the US?

fellowfootballmate wrote:

Bradley is switching up his whole strategy and making players play different positions, plus the USA's top defender Onyewu isn't 100% (he isn't that good anyways), while England has and will always be a football juggernaut. It's seen as their national sport (although officially it isn't), and are passionate about it. I'm not saying USA's team isn't passionate, but I am saying that England has the support of a whole nation and have a great national sense of pride. They will not allow themselves to lose to a nation who doesn't give a crap about football. I guess we'll see who is right in 2 days. Here's a quick fact for you, USA hasn't beaten England in a match since 1993.

I agree with that to a point, but tactically, this is the toughest game England will have prior to, potentially, the semi-finals against Brazil. With Gareth Barry not fit, and Michael Carrick not in great form, England have no one to play holding midfield. If England starts Lampard and Gerrard, which they will, neither will stay home enough to stop a counter attack (and they aren't exactly Xavi and Iniesta in the attack together either). PLUS, Cole and Johnson are both more attacking than defensive fullbacks. Ashley Cole may be the best left fullback in the world, but Landon Donovan dominated him when they played in the premiership earlier this season. Finally, England has serious problems in central defense and goal keeper (has Don Fabio even decided on a keeper yet?). I just think that the English defense will be extremely vulnerable to counter attacking and will leak goals in against the US.

fellowfootballmate wrote:

Anyone who thinks USA will win doesn't know anything about football.

Your words are marked my good fellow...

get real2me wrote:

fellowfootballmate wrote:

Here's a quick fact for you, USA hasn't beaten England in a match since 1993.

Not that I think these stats mean anything because the players and coaches change fairly frequently on nationals teams, but when did England last beat Spain? When did the US?

Hey buddy, your argument is irrelevant here. I'll argue with you just for the sake of arguing though. Just because they beat Spain, it doesn't mean they are the better team. When Mexico beat Brazil in the Copa America in 2007, does that mean that Mexico is better than Brazil? Of course not. Now, getting back on the subject of USA and England please.

I'll bump this thread when England beats USA

Jefe in the CO wrote:

fellowfootballmate wrote:

Anyone who thinks USA will win doesn't know anything about football.

Your words are marked my good fellow...

A little ignorant over here, but can someone explain to me the elimination process of the world cup? What happens if the USA loses this game?

They play 2 more teams, which are Algeria and Slovenia.

A win is 3 points

a draw is 1 point

a lose is 0 points

The top 2 teams in points advance to the round of 16. In case of a tie in points, this happens.

1. greatest number of points in all group matches;

2. goal difference in all group matches;

3. greatest number of goals scored in all group matches;

4. greatest number of points in matches between tied teams;

5. goal difference in matches between tied teams;

6. greatest number of goals scored in matches between tied teams;

7. drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee.

In the opening round, each team is in a group of 4 teams that will all play each other. The top 2 teams in each group (8) qualify for the knockout rounds. After that, lose and you're out. The reason the USA England match is so important is that the winner will be in a great position to win the group, which will make for a relatively easy path to the semi-final. The group runner up will likely get Germany in the round of 16, which will most likely be a loss for either team (England on paper is better than Germany, but have a long history of getting beaten by Germany in World Cups).

fellowfootballmate wrote:

Just because they beat Spain, it doesn't mean they are the better team. When Mexico beat Brazil in the Copa America in 2007, does that mean that Mexico is better than Brazil? Of course not.

Maybe the point is that the "better team" doesn't always win. No doubt it will be considered an upset if the US wins, but it is a reasonable possibility.