Postmortem
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of the U.S. in Brazil
Brian Sciaretta takes a look at the tournament that was, wondering what we learned, what could have been, and what's coming up in the future. You're going to want to read.
THE UNITED STATES national team's 2014 World Cup ended with a hard fought 2-1 loss in extra-time to Belgium.
Here are my instant reactions to the four games the U.S. played in Brazil.
Donovan is the type of player that thrives on counter attacking, crossing, and making effective runs in the box. He might not be the player he was four years ago but he is still capable of playing well. It is hard to get away from the fact he would have been useful at key moments against Germany and Belgium. Donovan would have fit very well into these games.
The Bad: The U.S. team can and must do better than how it played the first 105 minutes.
Belgium outplayed the Americans for long stretches of the game. While Tim Howard provided one of the finest goalkeeping performances I have seen, it is never a good thing for a team to need its netminder to make as many big saves as Howard made. Belgium is loaded with great players. Look at the clubs of its starting XI: Chelsea, Atletico Madrid, Bayern Munich, Manchester City, Tottenham, Zenit, Manchester United, Wolfsburg, Napoli, Chelsea, Lille. But the U.S should be able to play better and still impose itself far more than it did Tuesday afternoon. Costa Rica found ways against Italy, Uruguay, and Greece. Mexico did against Brazil, Croatia, and even in its loss to a very powerful Holland team. The United States has been the best team in CONCACAF the past three years. Compare the World Cup loss of the U.S. in 2002 to Germany and Belgium in 2014. Why wasn’t this year's squad able to go out with more of a fight throughout the entire game?The Bad: Wondolowski’s miss covers up larger problem
The forward should have done better but dwelling on it misses the big picture. If the United States creates a reasonable and attainable number of scoring opportunities, it will likely finish off one. Wondolowski will bear the burden because his mistake was glaring but the bigger culprit is the entire team, which failed to create a reasonable number of chances thereby placing too much emphasis on one single chance.The Bad: Donovan’s absence hurt
When Klinsmann cut Landon Donovan from the World Cup team, U.S. fans erupted with shock and disappointment. After a few days, there was a consensus to move on and for the most part, the topic died down. But now that the U.S.'s World Cup campaign is over, a decision of that magnitude can and should be reexamined.
Donovan is the type of player that thrives on counter attacking, crossing, and making effective runs in the box. He might not be the player he was four years ago but he is still capable of playing well. It is hard to get away from the fact he would have been useful at key moments against Germany and Belgium. Donovan would have fit very well into these games.
The Good: The team showed its potential and character in the final 15 minutes
Only after the United States fell behind 2-0 did it take the game to Belgium. Julian Green’s goal was brilliant, and the Americans could very well have equalized on several occasions. Of course, it is fair to question why it took a late two-goal deficit to play up to its potential, but the positive is that the U.S. team’s potential is quite high. Despite Belgium’s elite talent, the opportunities were there the for the U.S. team. It just needs to be consistent. Following the game, Jurgen Klinsmann spoke of the need for the team to learn to dictate the game. This addresses the correct problem. The confidence the team displayed in the last final 15 minutes should be a good starting point and a source of motivation to start the next cycle in September.
