Monday, June 2, 2014

USA 2-1 Turkey player ratings

That was better. Better than the Azerbaijan game and better than I expected.
Not that this should come as a shock to anyone, but seeing 'em live is very different.

Highlights for y'all:

Man of the match - Michael Bradley

Least valuable player - Timothy Chandler

Still defending - Jozy Altidore

Team average - 7.1

- Jacob Klinger


25 comments:

Tony M said...

I stand second to no man in my adoration of Michael Bradley. And it was a lovely, lovely assist. But his first touch was a tournover and he still turned the ball over more than Michael Bradlye should. He was better than last game, but still a touch flat overall, I thought.

I'm generally closer to Greg's ratings than yours this time.

Matt Brock said...

i too would like to say that bradley turned the ball over way too much. he can't keep turning it over that frequently if the USA is to advance.

justinwkoehn said...

This is the highest rated I've seen Green. Most others have him 4-5. I guess you get a better perspective when you're evaluating other factors than touches.

Jolazo said...

Echoing what the earlier comments said. Bradley was solid, but he wasn't the MOTM in my mind. Fabian, Jozy, Jermaine and Cameron were all better. Part of that is because I (and we) have such high standards for Bradley. He was sharper than against Azerbaijan, but he wasn't the best player on the field.

Jacob Klinger said...

I agree that Bradley faded from field general to game manager, but I thought he was very good in both roles. And yeah, he definitely turned the ball over, but often under intense "ahh, i don't know what to do, here you go!" passes from teammates, compounding pressure.

But that's his job. I just thought he freed up and found space much more often than not.

Basically, he stays man of the match for me as many if not all good things American and attacking ran through him one way or another on Sunday. Others made their contributions, I just thought he made more.

FWIW, he was the "official" MOTM and Turkey's head coach named him first when asked, via translation, about who was most dangerous for the U.S.

@justin
It's probably not that noble of a difference. I tend to give guys credit for opening up space from opponents just realizing that they're fast. But also, I really liked his positioning.

Jacob Klinger said...

Greg has goodies and NSC isn't my personal ad space, but if you all want a fuller view of my thoughts, here you go.

Justin Henson said...

Chandler least valuable player? LOL, right... Sure, his last 20 minutes were subpar but he was pretty damn good the first 70. The least valuable player most definitely belongs to either Brad Davis or Julian Green, both were truly awful in this game. I lean towards Davis since his length of suckitude was much longer than Green's.

Jacob Klinger said...

The Turkish players weren't even looking to their left to go around the U.S. back line. He got sucked in bad. The whole defense struggled early on, but he was the go-to entry point for Turkish attacks throughout his entire performance. And the last 20 minutes were worse than subpar. He was hanging the defense out to dry on simple back passes.

What didn't you like about Davis? I've been pretty critical of his selection to the 23, but I thought he was fine despite chaos at the back and a formation that all but takes away the best part of his game. Heck, he even dribbled out of pressure on his own in the middle of the pitch.

Truly awful seems harsh for both, to me.

Mark DeBlois said...

Tim Chandler had some shaky defending - not just on the goal - but he also had a number of very good plays, including an assist on Dempsey's goal. One thing that impressed me was that, when he got caught out of position, that he hustled hard to get back into a good position. The flip side of that is that he finds himself out of position too often. He struck me as a guy not completely comfortable who is working hard to find his form. The big question is if he has enough time to find it at a position that isn't his best.

justinwkoehn said...

Chandler is not a LB. I'm not sure what Jurgen is doing, but I I think Beasley > Chandler at LB. That being said, I think a Chandler(RB)/Johnson(LB) would be stronger overall than a Johnson(RB)/Beasley(LB) combo, but JK appears to be putting in the best at RB first and foremost, even at the expense of LB. I'd still love to see a Chandler-Cameron-Brooks-Johnson back line for at least one half.

Greg Seltzer said...

I totally agree with you. But I would much rather see a (R to L) Cameron-Goodson-Besler-Johnson back four for 90 minutes.

justinwkoehn said...

Yeah, but unfortunately Goodson isn't an option unless Gonzo or Brooks has a "training accident" sometime soon. I find it funny that everyone had Besler locked in the center starting role until he had a shaky game, and Brooks had a solid 39 minutes (first 6 minutes were iffy). The 2 CB's must have chemistry, and Goodson/Besler would have definitely fit that bill. With the 4 CB's we have now, it's safe to say none have real chemistry together, so I'd put the two best overall talents: Cameron and Brooks in to start the Nigeria game (which I will be at, so I will play the "I was at the game, so I'm right" card afterward).

Greg Seltzer said...

Yeeeeeah. I'm still woefully unclear on why so many people believe Cameron should be a center back at this level. It makes no sense to me at all.

justinwkoehn said...

I took my opinion out of it. I know the coaches have him in the CB pool, so that's where I put him. Cameron wants a CB role both professionally and internationally, and he's been doing a decent job, so that's where he stays. JK is on the record saying it's his best position, and so is Cameron: "I still think center back is my best position and I'm more comfortable." (March 26, 2013)

Greg Seltzer said...

First of all, being in the CB pool is not chiseled stone. All it takes to change that is to change that, we are not forced into only using him there in Brazil.

As for JK's opinion and Cameron's statement, they do not relate to international tournament matches outside CONCACAF. Because neither has ever seen him play one as a CB. With all due admiration to all involved, Geoff's greatest stretch of feeling comfy at the position came in MLS. In the Prem, the closest comparison we have to a World Cup level, he is a proven right back, a d-mid as distant second and only plays CB in an absolute emergency.

justinwkoehn said...

So does that mean you feel more comfortable with a Brooks-Besler or Gonzo-Besler pairing in the mid if that means Cameron can play RB? I'd argue that you have 2 other capable RB's (and DMs) on the roster, so Cameron is moved to the position of greatest need.

Greg Seltzer said...

"So does that mean you feel more comfortable with a Brooks-Besler or Gonzo-Besler pairing in the mid if that means Cameron can play RB?"


No and no. I am not comfortable with any possible CB combo in camp right now. But I am much more comfortable with the idea of Gonzo-Besler if it means Chandler is not starting at right or left back.




"I'd argue that you have 2 other capable RB's (and DMs) on the roster, so Cameron is moved to the position of greatest need."


Not that I agree with your assessment that two others are capable starters at this level, but what makes that a greater position of need?

justinwkoehn said...

Well if you look at the other 3 centerbacks, you have slow, slow, and inexperienced. If you can inject a mid-table EPL starter, while also covering the position you'd have to move him from, I'd say that's a fair trade-off. With the current players, it looks like you would go with Cameron-Gonzo-Besler-Johnson. From what I've seen on Gonzo this year, that's extremely worrisome to me. I would be in favor of shifting Cameron over to his spot and inserting Chandler, but obviously you are not of the same opinion. Another option would be to shift Cameron over, move Johnson to RB, and have Beasley at LB, which is what JK will probably do. I still think this is a slightly better option than the Gonzo-Besler CB pairing.

Greg Seltzer said...

Umm, he is not even slightly an EPL starter at center back. And I disagree the station would be covered appropriately. And all five of the potential CB choices are inexperienced.

I also fail to see how Gonzo at his proper position of center back is scarier than Bease/Chandler at LB (and for 90 minutes) or Cameron in the middle.

justinwkoehn said...

Cameron (at his improper position according to you) looks better than Gonzo at his proper position. How is it a stretch that someone that only plays in the CB role occasionally can be better than someone who always plays that role? There are different levels of talent/ability at play here.

Gonzo in his current form as CB is a scarier proposition than Beasley at LB (We both agree Chandler shouldn't even be considered at LB moving forward) because I weight the importance of CB higher than LB. Maybe that's my mistake, and I should rate them equally. If that's the case, I see your point.

Greg Seltzer said...

I do not necessarily agree with your performance evaluation, but that is not the whole picture. Is the drop down to Gonzo larger than the drop down from Cameron at right back to Beasley or Chandler at left back? I will let you decide that one.

Well, part of how I rate their importance is match-ups. And the Group G right wingers scare the holy living crap out of me. Like Richard Pryor in any movie scared. The strikers not so much.

justinwkoehn said...

Fair point. It looks like the only thing we can agree on is that Fabian should be at LB.

What formation would you recommend to neutralize these terrifying wingers? Is a 4-3-3 wide enough, or a traditional 4-4-2?

Greg Seltzer said...

What is a traditional 4-4-2? Do you mean flat midfield?

I have been consistently on record as saying the US should be in a 433/4231 continuously for almost 12 years now.

justinwkoehn said...

I know you have been on the record with the 4-3-3. I was asking if this formation (or the 4-2-3-1 for that matter) still be the same approach if you are worried about massive talent on the wings. Would a 4-4-2 (yes, flat midfield) be a better approach to counter the wingers? Since the draw was just in December, I wanted to know if the formations you've been preaching still be the same given our opponents.

Greg Seltzer said...

Yes.