US vs Jamaica

How about we just make Crew Stadium our Wembley until further notice? I know it's a bit provincial and even somewhat bigoted, but, dammit, I get tired of seeing so much support for visiting teams at certain other venues. That debacle in the Rose Bowl, even though it was technically a tournament, shouldn't happen again. They're sure as hell not gonna play fair when we go there...why should we, even though we're the upright, sportsmanlike Americans? Screw 'em. Let's at least rotate in the new heartland venues to keep it "fair."

 

I thought overall, it was a good showing and we were unlucky not to win by 3-4 goals. Several players impressed and surprised as mentioned above. For me MotM would be shared between Dolo and Zusi. I also agree that the sub choices were poor but Zusi taking a knock (and he was on a yellow if I'm not mistaken) explains one of the 3.

I thought Torres looked much better in the first half when he was under little pressure than he did in the second. Same with Jones. We seemed to struggle making headway bringing the ball up on the left or through the middle in the 2nd half. I thought the same as Barry about Jones going missing (and thanks for the explanation Mo). Dempsey kept having to track back so far to get the ball in positions that should have been occupied by Jones.

I don't fault Dempsey so much for the backheels and stuff. When the opposition park the bus, you have to just "try shit" sometimes and it usually doesn't come off. Especially when your touch is off, as his clearly was. At the same time, it's hard for a player who usually can do that stuff well to not attempt it. Regardless, to break the Jamaicans down, we needed a mix of crossing from wide positions, creativity in the middle and attempting shots from distance and when we did all of those things, we had some good chances. I also disagree with those saying he should have been subbed. Clearly he put in some miles and looked tired, but at the end, the only time we didn't give possession right back to Jamaica was when the clearances went to Dempsey. Altidore was terrible in that regard.

As was Shea. I only yelled at the tv twice, and once was when Shea sat there in the box with the ball at his feet reading War & Peace before playing it poorly. There are times when that kid can be brilliant creatively and times when it looks like he is miles out of his depth in trying to read and react to the game. And don't get me started on that dive. :twisted:

I also noticed Cameron clearly yelling at someone over marking assignments late in the match. I suspect that was Edu but couldn't see it on screen. I agree that playing in the Prem (even for Stoke) is going to benefit his (Cameron's) development greatly. I don't know that Edu is going to see much time though. He seems to be regressing (probably from too much time playing middle school football).

And lastly, I thought the crowd came across well on the tv and I was impressed. I usually am whenever we play in the midwest.

All in all, it was a much needed 3 points, a better display than we got on Friday and a good time in the chat, so no complaints.

 

Now that we have a win, I can manage some reflection on Friday's loss. What really annoyed me was the number of complaints our players made about the quality of the pitch. It's not as if they didnt know about it going into the match. If the field is bumpy then a big part of the plan should have been take the ball wide and get some crosses into the box. Someone reported that the US only had one cross all night. It's not as if players and coaches that grew up in the US (I'm looking at you Vasquez) dont know about playing on crappy fields. Instead they tried fast attacking soccer that involved some pretty risky passing sequences, as oppossed to shorter, triangular passing. How do they not know their passing will end up being too sloppy on a bumpy pitch against an athletic Jamaican team if that is what they are going to do? It's elementary. The other big part of the plan should have been to avoid stupid unnecessary fouls in dangerous areas. If the pitch is bumpy then your best chances will likely occur on set pieces rather than the run-of-play. We gave Jamaica two of them from stupid fouls by Beckerman and Edu, and they scored two goals.

This is coaching 101 and the USA did not have it on Friday, imo

 

Chicago would get my vote. It won't ever happen, but that's where I'd put our biggest matches. They've consistantly provided the best (or among the best) American support and are a sufficiently large city.

Columbus should definitely be in the rotation for matches and should be proud of the job they did hosting last night. :clap: I can only wish we could perform comparably here in Texas. :angry-banghead:

 

Sorry Ag but you're wrong on this one. The last USA - Mexico match Chicago hosted was embarrassing. Games vs Mexico in the US has to be the litmus test and Chicago has failed, Columbus has not. Chicago is my favorite city on the planet and I would gladly travel there to see the US play so it does sadden me to admit this. Even when we played Poland in Chicago we barely had a home field advantage. Mid size midwestern cities are the answer. If the Pacific Northwesst would get some grass fields they might be but we still might lose our home field advantage against Mexico there, so I'm not sure on that.

 

Well why not D.C.? From what I can tell if you take away a loss to North Korea in 1991 and Honduras in 2001, we have a great record in the nation's capital. RFK can easily be converted and updated to be a football(soccer) specific stadium. Plus you will get that pro-american advantage along with international flair from the diversity of the D.C. area(I think NYC is the only city more diverse). The area is pretty easy to get around and the weather is decent until winter. You can keep giving the Jan-Feb matches to Carson, CA. But the idea I like the most is giving the opportunity for presidents and dignitaries from other countries the chance to arrange visits to D.C. and see their nation teams play and perhaps have some nice unofficial dialoge that can lead to something greater in the future. We already know this sport has power, so let's put it where it could benefit the country and the world.

 

What a night! My first US international match and it was better than I even anticipated! I sat right in the heart of the American Outlaws and was singing as loud as I could. So proud of my city as well as the way the team played. Such a shame they couldn't convert on more goals!

Would love to see another match make it to Columbus in the near future.

Here's a couple pics from my vantage point...

 

Is that the first half action end or the second half goal scoring end?

 

First half end so I got to see all the close calls but sadly no goals.

 

Awesome stuff, F! I plan on being at the next USMNT match in Columbus come hell or high water!

 

Thanks for sharing, Mr. F. Sweet.

 

The US MNT has given up only one goal and never lost at Crew stadium in nine outings, most of which were World Cup qualifiers. You dont want the international flair that you get in DC, that's the whole point. Our team deserves the home field advantage that ALL of our opponents enjoy. DC easy to get around, yeah because you literally have to go around it, way around it, to avoid all the traffic. The stuff you talk about is an argument for the US hosting the WC, and one they used in their bid, it is not an argument for where to hold must win qualifiers.

Another argument for Crew Stadium is Lamar Hunt's legacy.

Like Don said, hold games that are meant to be money makers - friendlies, big european team tours - in the large stadiums of large cities.

 

Outside of Mexico, what CONCACAF team are we surrendering home field advantage to in any US venue? As I said, they'll never designate a single stadium as the USMNT home ground, so we might as well keep rotating matches around the country. Worry about exclusionary tactics for qualifiers against Mexico, otherwise spread the wealth and, at the very least, give every MLS city a chance to host.

Surely you aren't saying a diverse crowd won't root for the US. I realize we have the issue with a large portion of Mexican-Americans rooting for Mexico; I've been to the USMNT v Mexico in Houston where that was on full display. But I don't believe any other opponent in CONCACAF can draw enough support in any US stadium to leave even the slightest question as to who the home side are based on the support. I also don't buy that other cities can't provide a very good atmosphere.

 

Holding WCQ games exclusively where White America lives? Not a fan.
I agree with Aggie (might be the first time I've ever had to type that about an A&M fan....) - Mexico is a different story. El Tri is the most popular sports team in the USA (not the Yankees or the Cowboys). Put 'em in C-Bus if you want.
Alienating/excluding the other areas of the country and other fans?....not a good idea.

 

error

ignore this, I tried to delete it - didnt get quote function right

 

You're not just trying to outnumber your opponent, you are trying to get an electric, raucous atmosphere in support of the USA. All the CONCACAF teams have that and more when they play at home; we usually do not. The US had that Tuesday night in Columbus; just read what the players had to say about it. I was at the USA v Jamaica Gold Cup game in DC just over a year ago and the USA did not have the overwhelming support you saw Tuesday. It only existed in the American Outlaws section. If we played El Salvador in DC, their supporters would rival the US supporters in their vocal support. I know this because El Sal played in the Gold Cup right after the USA v Jamaica match and their support was superior to that of the USA's.

I have no problem sharing the wealth with other MLS cities as long as they provide an overwhelmingly pro USA atmosphere. As I said earlier, I predict KC will when the US plays Guatemala there, and hopefully their supporters will try to out do the Columbus supporters because that is what we need. It was someone else in this thread that suggested we make Crew stadium the USA's Wembley, and several journalists have made the same suggestion; I was only supporting Crew Stadium as a better choice for that than RFK.

Like I said above, I saw El Salvador support their team in DC better than the USA was supported. The American fans could outnumber their opponent's fans but unless they are wearing the USA colors and cheering for the USA how do you know who has the greater support. And even if the opponent has smaller numbers in terms of support, does it really matter if they are more vocal than the USA support? Plenty of Americans go to a USA soccer match, but unfortunately arent willing to do anything more than sit, watch, and clap if the USA scores a goal. The US teams want and deserve more than that. We should play where the fans will give them that. More and more that will mean MLS stadiums because that is where the supporter culture is growing. To your final statement, I never said other cities cant provide a good atmosphere; I dont think anyone did.

 

Columbus is not "white America". Please dont stereotype. Columbus happens to be where you get vocal and active support for the US MNT. And the midwest is excluded and alienated all of the time as the fly over states so no lectures on that please. Dont know where you are from SBG, but people in the northern cities wrongly and ignorantly stereotype Texans all of the time and I always stick up for the Lone Star state.

 

I was actually more referring to the earlier suggestion that WCQ games be primarily in SLC and C-Bus.
SLC is 75% white (above the overall national average), and C-bus is 61.5% (below the nat'l avg, but with only 5.6% Hispanic population - stands less of a chance at having significant Latino representation in a crowd). Be proud of your local turnout the other night, but spare me a lecture about how other cities don't support the team, and I'll spare you the poorly-thought-out generalizations.
I don't recall lecturing you about "fly-over states," and I'm not sure where I suggested excluding the mid-west from anything. On the contrary - what I propose is inclusionary: that the national team should play all over this great nation.

 

Sorry it's taken me so long to get on here. What a game! The atmosphere was unlike anything I've ever seen. Like Mr.F, this was my first USMNT experience. Amazing.

I watched the game again and was very disappointed in the audio of the crowd that came across on TV. It truly was electric and loud. It was the type of atmosphere that the USMNT should always play in at home.

I was in the corner to the left of Mr.F. Here is a shot of the crowd. (I've never uploaded a pic on here so hopefully this comes out okay.)