USA v ENGLAND

gooch messed up and that led to the first goal. he was in no man's land. but he played a very strong second half. the us, as a whole, played very well in the second half. there were lapses, especially early on in the second, where the us was not pressuring just outside the 18, but overall, the defense and mids really did not let the attaching british front create much.

things that were good:

--howard is one of the best keeper in the world, and showed friedel-esque poise under the pressure. this bodes well for a long run.

--donovan was engaged. he played good crosses, had a good shot, and took good corners. early on, he looked a little disengaged. but, he was not a no show.

--altidore showed he can play. there were doubts after his stint in hull city. but, he was effective in getting a head on the ball, getting position, and creating. his run and shot were great. almost got a winner.

--size and strength. this is always a compliment to the us team, that they are in better shape than their opponents. and it showed today. england was worn out by the end, leading to sloppy tackles and good chances in the box. would have loved to have altidore in there for that last corner. with him and gooch, there will be header goals this tournament.

things that need improvement:

--full engagement from the start. the us was a step slow on d in the beginning, not getting to position and allowing separation (first goal). and a step slow getting to spots on offense (altidore should have headed that first cross in, but was too late).

--defense can allow too much space. this is the story of the team, always. hopefully gooch gets his legs under him and doesnt get caught out of position again. but there are times when there is just so much room for attackers to create...

opjerg wrote:

England are better than you, you moron

Really???

lol @ the people who think the us sucks at soccer and england are juggernauts. England are always stacked as anyone on paper but for some reason they just don't play well together. No latin flavor is the problem. Everyoneeeee knows that. Perhaps that will all chamge under capello though, he's a class act. And for those of you are complete idiots (a third of the people that posted on this thread), in soccer/football bad teams can make consistently good results against great teams (ie greece euro 04). You just play really defensive. But the point is that usa can tie england, but if both were to play a REAL juggernaut (lets say brazil) england would actually be able to go back and forth a bit, you know, joust. Whereas usa would be COMPLETELY outclassed.

ps in football, you can be outclassed w/o acquiring a huge goal difference on the scoresheet. It's all about how attractive of football you're able to put on. You can beat a team and still lose 1-2 (their goals are garbage).

pss one guy said that the us beat spain. Too bad that was in a stupid tournament that spain couldn't care less about and all the spain players were ridiculously hung over. And that's not excuse making, in football teams actually go into competitions were they don't even try to play hard.

Jefe in the CO wrote:

Now what did we learn about England?

They are not very good either. Goalkeeping blunders aside they are a mess all the way through from the back to the front and will not get past the second round - and that's assuming they get past their next two games - which is not a sure thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Weren't you the one who tried to define England as a "juggernaut"?!? Ugh.

Ugh is right.

USA better were the better team first half yet but for a horrendous blunder would have gone in at half time 1-0 down.

England were the better team second half yet but for the woodwork would have lost 2-1.

Fair result. Looking forward to Friday.

World Cup Willie wrote:

USA better were the better team first half yet but for a horrendous blunder would have gone in at half time 1-0 down.

England were the better team second half yet but for the woodwork would have lost 2-1.

Fair result. Looking forward to Friday.

I thought the US only started looking halfway decent in the 2nd half. Number of chances for each team seemed much more balanced after the break.

'66 was the first World Cup I watched. Since then EVERY WC England goes in vastly over-rated and every time they 'disappoint'. I stopped watching in the '80's and yesterday watched my first WC game since then and ...surprise!...absolutely nothing has changed. Same lack of imagination/flair and embarrassing blunders. Maybe I'll wait another 20 years....

I was flipping through the channels and I heard the Christian news show referring to England as 'the Brits'. I had heard this also on ESPN or ABC. I go to their website and it's even worse:

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/June/World-Cup-Played-in-Africa-for-First-Time-/

Team USA Ties With the Brits

Over the past weekend, Team USA, which is ranked among the top 15 teams in the world, walked off of the field with heads held high after its first match which resulted in a 1-1 tie with the British team.

The United Kingdom scored first with just five minutes into the game. But 35 minutes later, the U.S. responded with a goal after a fumble by the UK goalkeeper.

"It was a goal the keeper should probably have made a save on, but hey, they all count the same if they go in," said Team USA midfielder Clint Dempsey.

England has only reached as far as the World Cup semi-finals on two ocassions.

England has never beaten the U.S. in World Cup play.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

vuvuzela wrote:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

'England has never beaten the U.S. in World Cup play'

That's because you are hardly ever there

Total England Wins 8 USA 2

http://internationalsoccer.suite101.com/article.cfm/2010_world_cup_a_history_of_england_v_usa

Those are almost all friendlies, though. You can't compare a friendly to a full international.

In games that matter the score it is 1-0-1 US.

I really thought Buddle should have gone in earlier (60 minutes or so) and Torres should have gone in at midfield. We were simply not attacking during the last half save Buddle when they finally put him in.

Why was Bradley asking Dempsey if he should come out? If you have to ask, he should be out. Dempsey wasn't attacking AT ALL. Jesus, hammer some balls at the goal. We did it once and we damn near got the goal.

I hate watching the old guard get in a rut and do nothing about it. England was dead, Torres would have run down their throats and we would have forced an error for sure.

vuvuzela wrote:

vuvuzela wrote:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Those are almost all friendlies, though. You can't compare a friendly to a full international.

In games that matter the score it is 1-0-1 US.

That's because all the USA have qualified for is 'almost friendlies'

That's because you have not qualfied for many world cup finals, going missing for a period of over 3 decades! England beat you by virtue of having qualified for all these finals

ukathleticscoach wrote:

That's because all the USA have qualified for is 'almost friendlies'

That's because you have not qualfied for many world cup finals, going missing for a period of over 3 decades! England beat you by virtue of having qualified for all these finals

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. U.S. is in its 9th world cup, England is in its 13th. It's not that big a gap. U.S. has qualified for the last 6 consecutively, England hasn't. U.S. is still undefeated against England in full international play.

Betfair Odds to win WC:

England 10/1

USA 100/1

While we are here how come the organisers do not ban this:

http://www.smh.com.au/world-cup-2010/world-cup-news/vuvuzela-brought-down-by-equaliser-20100615-yda7.html

But did ban this:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/406337-fifa-world-cup-2010-orange-girls-questioned-over-ambush-marketing

DocLove wrote:

Betfair Odds to win WC:

England 10/1

USA 100/1

We are only talking about head to head competition in the world cup, in which America has gotten the better of England. I will easily admit they have a better performance record overall in the WC. The U.S. has been better in head to head match-ups.